Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—THE LAND BILL. - MONEY RESOLUTION BY THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

The PRESIDENT

The formal notification has come from the Governor-General, and I move:—

Chun forálacha aon Achta a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun leasuithe na dlí a bhaineann le sealbhuíocht agus únaereacht talmhan do chólíona, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach:—	That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land, it is expedient:—
(a) a údarú go ndéanfar roimhíoc sealadach as an bPrímh-Chiste in aon tsuim is gá chun aon easnamh ar Chiste na mBannaí Talmhan do dhéanamh suas agus chun ús Bhannaí Talmhan d'íoc agus chun suimeanna d'íoc is gá chun Bannaí Talmhan d'fhuascailt;	(a) to authorise the temporary advance out of the Central Fund of any sum that may be required for making good any deficiency in the Land Bond Fund for the payment of interest on Land Bonds and for the payment of sums required for the redemption of Land Bonds;
(b) a údarú go n-íocfar as airgead a sholáthróidh an tOireachtas suim is leor chun an t-ús d'íoc ar Bhannaí a tabharfar amach chun go n-íocfidh an Stát cuid den phraigheas agus i gcóir Ciste na gCostaisí;	(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of a sum sufficient to pay the interest on Bonds raised for contribution by the State to the price and for the Costs Fund;
(c) a údarú go roimh-íocfar as airgead a sholáthróidh an tOireachtas suimeanna a chaithfidh Coimisiún na Talmhan le hath-dhéanamh aon bhealaigh uisce, dréin, puirt no oibre eile, no le cuid den ath-dhéanamh san;	(c) to authorise the advance out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of sums to be expended by the Land Commission in or towards the reconstruction of any watercourse, drain, embankment, or other work;
(d) a údarú go n-íocfar as airgead a shóláthróidh an tOireachtas suimeanna is gá do Choimisiún na Talmhan chun a chomhachtanna fén Acht san d'fheidhmiú no chun éinní eile do dhéanamh chun an tAcht san do chur in éifeacht maraon le suimeanna is gá chun luach saothair do thabhairt d'aon ghníomhaire talmhan, Aturnae no cléireach talmhan mar gheall ar dhualgaisí do chó-líona thar ceann únaera aon talmhan i dtaobh forálacha an Achta san;	(d) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of sums required by the Land Commission for exercising its powers under such Act, or otherwise for carrying such Act into effect, including sums required for the remuneration of any land agent, solicitor, or land clerk, in respect of duties performed on behalf of an owner of any land in relation to the provisions of such Act;
(e) a údarú go n-aistreofar, chun ainm an Aire Airgid chó maith le hainm an oifigigh sin do Choláiste na Tríonóide, Baile Atha Cliath, a ainmneoidh colucht rialúcháin an Choláiste, chun úsáide an Choláiste, an ciste atá i gcimeád ag an Iontaobhaí Puiblí fé Alt 39 den Acht Talmhan Eireannach, 1903, agus go n-íocfar deontas trí mhíle púnt sa bhliain leis an gColáiste as airgead a sholáthróidh an tOireachtas.	(e) to authorise the transfer into the joint names of the Minister for Finance and such officer of Trinity College, Dublin, as may be designated by the governing body of the College, for the use of the College, of the funds held by the Public Trustee under Section 39 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the payment to the College out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of an annual grant of three thousand pounds.

The first four clauses of this resolution concern matters which are already familiar to Deputies from the text of the Bill as printed, and from the explanations which have been given in the Dáil. The clauses indicate the specific charges on Public Funds to which the general provisions of the Bill may give rise.

Clause (a) covers the provision which will be found in Sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Bill. The advance which may be made under this clause from the Central Fund to the Land Bond Fund will arise only in the event of the Guarantee Fund being insufficient to meet the demands upon it. Any advance so made would be subsequently recoverable from the Guarantee Fund, so that ultimately the provision would entail no charge on the Central Fund. The provision is, however, important as affording the best security that the State can offer to the holders of Land Bonds.

Clause (b) is intended to cover the provision which will be found in Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Bill.

Clause (c) relates to the expenditure for which provision is made in Sub-section (5) of Section 37 of the Bill.

Clause (d) covers the general provision made in Section 58 of the Bill for enabling the Land Commission to have the necessary Funds for carrying the Act into effect, and it also covers the minor provision appearing in Sub-section (7) of Section 34 of the Bill of which any Land Agent, Solicitor, or Land Clerk, who performs duties on behalf of the owner of any land will be remunerated out of Public Funds as may be directed by the Land Commission with the assent of the Minister for Finance.

Clause (e) of the Money Resolution is new and Deputies will no doubt desire that I should explain it at somewhat more length. It will be remembered that when the Land Act of 1903 was being passed a special provision was inserted for the purpose of safeguarding Trinity College, Dublin, from the hardship which it was apprehended the College would suffer through having superior interest in land belonging to it redeemed on terms which would involve a loss of income to the college. It was felt at the time that it would not be proper that an educational institution should be allowed to suffer in this manner by reason of the adoption of the scheme of Land Purchase, and, accordingly the Act provided that a sum of £5,000 should be paid every year by the Government to the Public Trustee so that he might make use of this money in order to indemnify the college against such loss of income.

Payments under this arrangement have been made annually to Trinity College since 1903. The greater part of the money provided was, however, not required for this purpose, and a considerable balance has accordingly accumulated in the hands of the Public Trustee.

The college have for some time been bringing to the notice of the Government the general needs of the institution for further financial assistance, and also the possibility of their existing resources being impaired by the further steps which are being taken under existing Acts, and which are proposed to be taken under the present Bill for the completion of Land Purchase. In this connection the College have also pointed out that before the Treaty the British Government had endeavoured to provide that the college should be given additional financial assistance to the extent of an annual State grant of £30,000. This whole question has been very fully examined for some time past on the part of the Government and it has now been possible, subject to the approval of the Dáil, to obtain an agreement with Trinity College on the lines indicated generally by Clause (e) of this resolution. In consideration of the terms here indicated the college have formally undertaken that they will not approach the Government for financial assistance for at least a further three years, and, of course, no assurance is given on behalf of the State that an application even after that time can be entertained. It is part of the settlement that the college waives any further claim to indemnity in respect of the future operations of Land Purchase.

I should mention that the Ministry of Finance has agreed to put to the Dáil as part of this arrangement that a sum of £5,000 out of the University Vote should be devoted to the College also. Last year the sum so allocated amounted to £6,000, and in the previous year Trinity College received, I think, £12,000 from the British Government. I accordingly move the Resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move the deletion of paragraph (b) from this Resolution. I take it the proposals of the Bill, of which this Resolution is an essential preliminary, are divided into two parts, one of which is the transfer to the Land Commission, that is to the State, of rentals, as the Minister for Agriculture pointed out in his speech on the introduction of the Bill, and the giving of legal power to draw rent for certain lands. Those powers having been transferred to the State, then the process of re-transfer to the tenants, or to such other persons as may be agreed to, takes place, with the abrogation of the right to draw rentals. I take it, in agreeing to decide to bring in this Bill for the compulsory transfer from the present landlords of tenanted land, that the Government intends the Bill to provide for the payment, to these present landlords, of a certain sum as compensation for the compulsory abrogation by the State of a right which, for many years, has been exercised with the consent of the State. The State gave and the State will take away. The Bill provides for certain compensations for the landlords from whom this power to extract rent is being taken, and it is a fair question to ask, what is the basis on which the compensation is to be calculated? That brings me to the second, or corelative, part of the Bill. An inquiry is to be made, and it is assumed that the tenants will be able to pay for a certain number of years a certain sum of money annually. That is to be the basis of the compensation to be paid to the landlord. I want to know, therefore, why anything additional should be paid to the landlords? The right to extract rent which is being cancelled under this Bill is a right which was given by the State. The rental which they have been authorised to extract and to collect, has been fixed, in most cases, by Judicial Courts, and the State in its wisdom, at least the Minister in his wisdom, has put forward in the Bill a certain suggestion as to what is a reasonable charge to levy upon the future tenants. Now, presumably, that charge which is for a period of years, is to be levied on the future owner, the present tenant, and has been arrived at on some basis of reason. It is presumed to be what the tenant in the ordinary course of operations will be able to pay. I assert that it is a guess, that a rental of this kind, fixed in the way that is provided, is simply a leap in the dark, and is to be either a charge upon the tenant, the future owner, or upon the agricultural community, or upon the consuming public in favour of those persons who have in the past had a legal sanction to extract rent. It is not based upon any knowledge of what the future will be. You cannot predict the course of prices, you cannot predict the course of nature, or future harvests. You simply assume that the harvests, given good culture, will produce at least as much as in the past, and chance the question of prices. Having decided, as a matter of convenience, that the price to be charged the tenant towards the purchase shall be so and so, the proposal in this Motion is that there shall be added to that which the Minister and the State consider a fair charge upon the occupier—the man who does the work on the land—a sum, at the expense of the average taxpayer and the common fund, in the interest and for the benefit of the present land owner. It seems to me if the demand of the tenants for purchase is being fairly met and that the tenants agree to pay a price, that that is the sum and no more which ought to be paid to the present landlords. I do not see the justice nor the equity in calling upon the general taxpayer to hand over to the landlords this sum of 10% on the purchase money with an additional 2% for the costs fund. Whatever is a fair price to charge the tenants that is the fair price to pay the landlords. If it is a fair price to charge the tenants anything more than that is an unfair price to charge upon the common Exchequer, and is unfair to the community, for the benefit of the present land owners. If the argument were to run that the price that is fixed for the transfer of this right to extract rent for the landlord is the price fixed in the Bill, and if that is a fair price to pay the landlord, then that is a fair price to charge the tenant. I think the proposal in the Bill to ask the common taxpayer to pay the extra 10 per cent. is not justified by the facts. Inasmuch as the Minister has fixed the sum of money which for a period of 60 or 70 years will mean an annual charge upon the produce of the land, if that is a fair price, then again I say that is the price that ought to be paid to the landlord on the basis of the Bill that has been presented to us. That, in short, is the reason I have put forward for the deletion of paragraph (b) of this Resolution. I think no case has been made in favour of imposing this charge upon the taxpayer, and taking the figures that have been quoted, it will run to something over £100,000 a year, and in a few years considerably over that as a matter of fact. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance can promise that that amount is likely to be available to hand over as a gratuity to the landlords. I agree with Deputy Gorey in his interjection some time ago that this 10 per cent. was in strict truth a bonus to the landlord rather than an assistance to the tenant. I am sure the Bill will be greatly improved by the deletion of the clauses which are foreshadowed in this paragraph of the Resolution, and I propose to ask the Dáil to support its deletion.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I am quite willing to admit that Deputy Johnson has put the case against the 10 per cent. very fairly. At the outset in order to avoid misunderstandings we will have to christen certain things in the Bill. The Bill itself refers to the purchase money that the vendor is getting as the price. Let us take this old case of £100 rent. £1,505 is the landlord's money. That is called the price. £65 capitalised at 4¾ per cent. is £1,368. That is called the standard price in the Bill. The price is the standard price plus the addition of 10 per cent. I merely want to have the names quite clear, so that we will not be at cross purposes when we are referring to the price and the standard price. The standard price is the tenant's annuity capitalised. The price is the standard price plus 10 per cent. Deputy Johnson stated the case in one sentence. He said if the money for which the tenant is making himself responsible is a fair price, then that should be paid to the landlord and no more. But if the money which under the Bill the landlord is actually getting is the fair price, then that is the price which should be paid and that is the price the tenant should make himself responsible for.

I think that is fairly stating what he said on the question. There is a lot to be said for that point of view. I will be equally frank with Deputy Johnson, and I will say that if this were a new problem, or even a problem which had come into existence within the last five or six years, if it were not, in fact, a very old and very embittered problem, and a problem around which a great number of vested interests have grown up, and if, in addition, the European war, which has upset the money market all over the world, had never taken place, then I would say, and I have no hesitation in saying it, that the tenant should pay the full price that the landlord is getting. But we are back to the old difficulties that even a new parliament, after a very short time, begins to find itself up against—we cannot legislate in a vacuum. This is a very old problem. It is the historic Irish economic question. It was our only economic question for the last 30, 40, or 50 years, and, of course, it is even much older than that. A great number of vested interests have grown up around it. It is a sort of common consent in the country that different considerations should apply to the land question than to any other economic question. That is the fact that is well fixed in people's minds. It is well fixed in the tenants' minds. The small farmer, or his son, who lives in the country thinks—and it has been taught to him—that he has some better title to the land that adjoins his boundary fence and which happens to belong to a landowner than, let us say, the workman in the docks, who sees the ships of some big shipping company coming in every week, thinks in regard to these ships. The workman in Dublin never dreams of going to the State and asking for the loan of money in order to get a share in some ship that comes into the docks. It is altogether different. There is a totally different atmosphere, a totally different point of view. These are the expediencies——

Mr. O'CONNELL

Thanks for the hint.

Mr. HOGAN

We have got to recognise that. It may be illogical, it may not square with Deputy Johnson's rigid notions of economics, but the facts are there, and we have got to face them. We cannot afford to legislate in a vacuum. Deputy Johnson states that in his opinion this price is a guess. I hope I have made it clear that I do not agree with him, either that the price which the tenant is making himself responsible for is the fair price, or that the price which the landlord is receiving should be paid by the tenant, and I have given my reasons. I will examine these reasons in a minute. I come to the point now which he makes, namely, that this price is a pure guess. That is not very helpful. If the Deputy would give us his idea in figures of what the price should be and give his reasons—

Mr. JOHNSON

I will.

Mr. HOGAN

I suppose he will, at a later date—and give his reasons, then we could put one figure against the other and we could decide which of us was guessing. But I have not that advantage. The Deputy has not yet given the figures, but I daresay we shall receive them when we come to the price Sections of the Bill. For the moment I simply reiterate the statements which I made on the First and Second Reading in regard to this particular question.

We fixed this price to the landlord on its merits, and on the merits of the question itself. We fixed it in view of the fact that we cannot afford to acquire property compulsorily and to pay a price for it which would be less than its price to a Banking Institution, especially having regard to the fact that the particular property with which we are dealing was a favourite investment for Banking Institutions, Insurance Companies, Charitable Institutions and private individuals here, in England, and in America. That is a matter of fact. It simply does not admit of doubt, not for one moment; that was partly because the price or value of property itself had been, since 1881, regulated by the Land Courts. That was a very important matter from the investor's point of view. From the point of view of the Bank, he had definite figures to go on. He knew where he was in regard to them. Having regard to the fact, also equally important, that the value of this property regulated by law had not increased, had not shared in the general inflation in the value of property caused by the war, we had to keep that in mind. We had to fix a price which would not eat into the security value of this land. Otherwise we would be giving notice to the investor here and elsewhere that Ireland was not a place in which to invest money. We fixed the price from that point of view, and we fixed the price, I repeat it, from the point of view of giving justice to the landlords, and when I say giving justice to the landlords I mean exactly what I say, giving justice to the landlords, all the circumstances of the case being taken into consideration. I do not think I have any other political dogma, except that one man is as good as another. I think that is the only political dogma worth fighting for. I hope, though there may be many Deputies here who have a great many more dogmas, that they will at least share that with me. We will begin with that.

Now, with regard to the standard price to the tenant. I pointed out on the First Reading that Land Purchase was essentially a Stock Exchange transaction—that is, the State borrows money from one individual or body and lends it to another. The State has to borrow money at four and a half per cent. at least for this purpose, and when you borrow money at that price you cannot lend it at less. I pointed out also, that if we could borrow money on the terms on which money was borrowed for the purposes of the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act, we could pay the landlords' very nearly £1,600, and yet leave the tenant paying an annuity of £65.

The tenants put up a very strong case from their point of view. I do not admit their case for a moment. They have put up a case, a very vocal case, that they should have purchased under the previous Acts. I pointed out before the reasons of their failures to purchase under the previous Acts. These reasons are many and complicated and I need not go over them now. No doubt we will have them from others. I was willing to go a certain distance to meet them, and the Government was willing to save them from the consequences of the dearness of money due to the war. To do that we had to find just this 10 per cent. having previously settled the price as a fair price. That 10 per cent leaves them paying an annuity which is considerably less than the annuities paid by previous tenant purchasers. We had to take all this into account. We had to take expediency into account to some extent. It might be easier to deal with these 70,000 unpurchased tenants if 400,000 other tenants had not purchased already. But they have purchased. A man is living in a parish down the country; he knows the annuities his neighbours are paying, and the conditions of previous Land Purchase Acts, and naturally gets prepossessions and prejudices which, by the strict logician might be waived aside, but for which we are inclined to make allowances, commensurate with the case. It was to make up to the tenants that money remember, for reasons over which we had no control, that we paid this 10 per cent.

I do not agree that the tenants, having regard to all the facts, particularly to the fact that they did not purchase previously, and having regard to the present conditions of agriculture, should not be allowed this 10 per cent. and that the State should not make some concession in this direction. It will only cost us £50,000 a year, which is only a small price to complete Land Purchase. That it costs only £50,000 is the answer. Everyone who knows the country, everyone who knows the reactions of this question, the artificial reactions, will admit that £50,000 is a very small price to pay for this settlement.

With regard to the costs, I do not intend to enter into an argument with Deputy Johnson as to whether the landlords are entitled to the land, or whether as a matter of expediency they should get a certain compensation for taking it away from them. That argument will lead us nowhere. There is a lot to be said for both sides. Parliament is entitled, I take it, to acquire any property it requires in the National interests. I do not think there was ever an Act passed for the compulsory acquisition of property, except, perhaps, the 1909 Act, that did not pay the cost of making title for the owner from whom the property was being taken. Surely if the price is a fair one, you should not compel a man to go to a solicitor, to go to a barrister, or conveyancer and put him to all the costs of making title. It is for the State he is asked to do it. It is for the benefit of the State he is making the title. It is the State is compelling him to make title. If the price itself is fair, if it makes no allowance for costs, then, surely, in the interests of ordinary equity and justice, the State should make some contribution to the costs. I hold that the State should pay the full cost if the price is fair. Again, expediency intervenes. We have not as much money as we would like to have, and we have not made provision for the whole costs. We have only given them 2 per cent. That 2 per cent. will be allotted at the discretion of the Judicial Commissioner, and I certainly think that that discretion should be retained. Because there are many cases of very poor landlords. After all, we are dealing with the landlords who did not sell, and who did not sell in many cases because their estates were heavily encumbered. The price under previous Acts would be no good to them. Hence, they did not sell. We are dealing with them now, and it is only right that the Judicial Commissioner should be in a position, in a very bad case where a price is causing hardship, to give a bigger proportion of costs than in the case of a really well-off landlord into whose pocket the whole price was going. In any event, the price does not include the costs.

We are taking the land compulsorily and compelling the owner to make title. In that state of affairs it is the duty of the State at least to make a contribution towards the cost. The price here does not include the cost. The price under the 1909 Act more than included the cost, and in connection with the price mentioned in the case of every other Act, for instance the Acquisition of Land Act for railways or any other purposes, full costs were always paid.

Mr. WILSON

I would like to make the case a little clearer from my point of view. From what Deputy Johnson has stated one would imagine the State is going to assist a great deal towards the settlement of this land question. What the State is really doing is this: it is going to issue a million pound notes, if you like, with the name of, perhaps, the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture——

Mr. JOHNSON

"Cosgraves."

Mr. WILSON

and they are going to hand those to the seller of the land. All the State is going to lose on the whole business is £45,000 per year, but there is a provision in the Bill under which 5/- per cent. is to be paid by the tenant, and nobody has yet told us whether that 5/- per cent. is not making provision for this advance of interest. We have not seen the figures of the Sinking Fund. My belief is the tenant is paying the whole lot later on, before the 68 years have elapsed. However, we will hear about this from the Minister. What really is being done is that papers are being printed and handed to the landlord, and 4½ per cent. is being paid for a certain number of years. There is no talk at all about the State subsidising the landlord or the tenant. I do not believe we should make the Sinking Fund. We in the farming line do not want doles. We want to base calculations on actual facts, and we would like to see that our industry will not be a claim on the State. I should like to repudiate the statement which Deputy Johnson, inadvertently I admit, made. It was to the effect that we are being subsidised by the State. We are not being subsidised, and I believe a Sinking Fund is based on the fact that the £45,000 will be paid by the tenants.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to relieve the Deputy's mind on that matter, if he has any misapprehension about it. It is not the case. Clause (b) is part of the bargain. There were two parties to the bargain and they could not meet. The State, realising the difficulty of this problem, realising the importance of having it settled, surveying the whole situation and finding that one party would only give a certain price, and that the other party could not accept less than a particular price, makes up the difference. I do not subscribe to the statement made by Deputy Johnson that what the State gives the State can take away. If you establish that principle you make the legislation which would be enacted by the State the scope of every political chance that is conceivable. You damage the credit of the State. What the State undertakes to pay to-day it may possibly repudiate to-morrow. That is a rather serious proposition for a young and a new State.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is an internal one.

The PRESIDENT

I do not think it is an eternal one. I never heard of it before. I never heard it of any State which prospered and never heard it of any State which would honour its bargain, and make its bargain and keep it. We have got to give evidence of our good faith. In this particular case you might as well say: "The day after we will take away from the tenants what they have bought from us; we will dispose of any contributions they have made towards the liquidation of this Land Bond Fund, and we will hand over to another order of the State the property we have already taken from the landlords." It would be within the power of a Capitalist Government coming here to say: "We will stop work, as far as labourers are concerned, for one day in very week so as to punish them for looking sulky some mornings or not turning up to their work in time." That is a bad system to go on. It is the old absolutism of the Czars and it is time it was rubbed off. The State has many liabilities and responsibilities towards every section of the community and every section of the community has liabilities and responsibilities towards the State. The State has not got absolute power with regard to this. It has powers within the limitations of natural justice, and it dare not go a single inch beyond those limitations. The question in this case is, are the tenants getting off too cheaply or are the landlords getting too much? I think an examination by an unprejudiced person will give but one answer. That is that in one case they are giving all they can afford and in the other case they are getting as little as it is possible to give them with any degree of justice. Deputies smile, but if they consider and look at the bargains made under the 1903 or 1909 Acts, the smile will be the other way. In those cases there was option of purchase and option of sale but there is no option in this case. You are ramming it down people's necks whether they like it or not. You are passing an Act to acquire land and finish what has been done up to this. If the case be that this is improper and that it is too much and that you are asking the State to contribute too much towards the solution of a problem that has baffled very able legislators for more than 50 years, then I make you a present of your judgment. Take it criticised from another point of view— that it is too much to one particular section of the community, the landlords and the tenants. They might equally retort that the half million we have struck for Unemployment Insurance is too much. Manufacturers of light and heavy commodities might come here and say: "we are being taxed too much and you ought to pay us; we should get a contribution from the State instead of having our particular manufactures taxed." It is the business of the legislator to distribute the burden evenly, to relieve it where it is too heavy, and make it light wherever it is possible. It is a very popular thing to attack the landlords' interest—very popular. There are very serious reactions in that, if that be the line of policy that is going to be taken. The success of this particular Bill depends upon the success and the credit of the State. Damage that, and there is no use in your trying to pass any Act to finish up land purchase.

Professor MAGENNIS

Deputy Johnson has, of late, indulged himself and us in the enuciation of quite a number of interesting, though not original, theories with regard to property. It would not, of course, be quite fair to twit him with the fact that the doctrines he professes in one session are not quite consistent with those which he advocates in another. In his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill he uttered words which excited my inward applause. I regret to find him to-day drawing away from the position that he took up then. I had understood from many of his previous remarks that he believed the land belonged to the people, that the land was the property of the Nation. Very good! That is still apparently the opinion on the 3rd July. On a certain date in June, Deputy Johnson was willing to take the sane, practical man's attitude, and declare, that, after all, he was not going to stand by the doctrinaire view too steadfastly, that so long as the land was cultivated he was well satisfied. Very well. Here is the way to have the land cultivated, and cultivated in the interests of the Nation. Give it to the peasant proprietor. I still have the assent of the benches on my left. The way to have the land cultivated is to give it to the peasant proprietor, but notwithstanding Purchase Acts—and one great Act as late as 1903 —there are still 70,000 unpurchased tenants in the country. How are we to secure proprietary rights in the land for these 70,000 tenants if the infamous tribe of landlords, mortgagees and all the rest stand between the realisation of that great benefit for the Nation and the former class? Must the sale remain an uncompleted thing? Are no inducements to be offered? The Minister for Agriculture made an absolutely complete case just now when he pointed out the business aspect of this transaction. I am trying, as I have stated, to learn the great art of taking notes. I wrote down: "The price fixed was fixed on its merits; we could not take land at less than a bank would give." The land is the very type of investment which banks seek after and all those who are looking for a safe security, such as religious orders, love to have their funds invested in the land. That is a solid fact which even Deputy Darrell Figgis in his most imaginative moments would not seek to controvert.

The one thing which I always expect to hear propounded from the Labour benches is the right of man to justice. Let me quote Burke:—"Justice is the great standing Policy of Civil Society." It is not Policy written with a little initial letter "p," but written with a capital; not policy in the common "politician" sense of mere devices of expediency, but Policy in the best and highest sense—the National Policy of equitable treatment according to the natural rights and the acquired rights of mankind. If justice is the great standing Policy of Civil Society, the next question to ask is: The Policy of what; and what is Society? Obviously the Policy of the State. Deputy Figgis is beginning to be afraid that I shall launch out, more Figgis, on a disquisition on the State and on Society. It is sufficient, for my purpose, to mention them and pass on. The State is merely the citizens in their collective and corporate capacity. The citizens in their collective and corporate capacity exercise control over each citizen and over all citizens in the name of the common sense of most citizens. Amongst those citizens to whom the equities have to be exercised are landlords. Deputy Johnson asked us to go into the history of landlordism and to see how the landlords of to-day came to be here. Surely, there is no sense in that. It is to invite us to behave as children. Are we to go back to the beginning of the world, and to reverse all the reverses of the battle fields, to overthrow all dynasties and to begin all over again? That is simply a proposal to substitute anarchy for civilisation. I am not a bit more enamoured of landlordism as a thing, or of the landlords of Ireland as a class than Deputy Johnson is. Neither am I enamoured of the National weather. I take the Irish weather as I find it. I saw in an American paper recently the remark of a politician that he took politics as he found them, and he found them particularly rotten. I take facts as I find them, though they may be particularly rotten. Here is the solid fact, that land is the great sought-after investment, and that the land is owned or professed to be owned by a certain class of men, some of them unable to sell, though willing to sell, because of incumbrances. Transfer of the land from these men could, no doubt, be secured by absolute spoliation. I wonder does Deputy Johnson, who claims the doctrine of justice being the great standing Policy of Civil Society, propose spoliation—taking the land by violence and giving naught.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The suggestion is that the State should not pay anything towards the price. That is the exact point at issue.

Professor MAGENNIS

With all respect, I have not lost sight of that. The doctrine upon which this proposal, with regard to 10 per cent., is founded was enunciated, and I am dealing with that. I am coming from the source of it in the Deputy's mind to the fact at which he arrives. I am passing along by the same route as I conjecture he travelled.

His objection to the 10 per cent. in other words is a deduction from his theory with regard to what the landlord is entitled to get. His contention is apparently that the landlord should get nothing. That is either a gratuitous assumption or it is founded on something which appeals to the Deputy's mind as reason.

Mr. JOHNSON

Were you present when I spoke?

Professor MAGENNIS

No, I was not present at the beginning of the Deputy's speech.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not going to discuss whether the landlord should get any price for his land. That was not suggested in Deputy Johnson's speech. The question at issue is that paragraph (b) be deleted from this Money Resolution, and the effect of the deletion would be that the State would pay no contribution towards the price.

Professor MAGENNIS

I must be particularly dull, and particularly confused if the Chairman is under the impression that I have lost sight of that being the proposition. The proposition, as I understand it, is that this payment of 10 per cent. shall not be made to the landlord.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A contribution shall not be made by the State towards the price. That is a different thing.

Professor MAGENNIS

No. I heard sufficient of Deputy Johnson's speech to know that he argued that if the price to be paid by the tenant was a fair price, then that was the price the landlord was to receive. If the price the landlord was to receive was a fair price, then that was the price the tenant was to pay. According to that argument, there was no room for a plus or for that 10 per cent., because there was equality. That is what I think I heard the Deputy argue. Am I not right?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Professor MAGENNIS

My contention, not rebutted, is what lies behind his mind is the idea to which he gave full and explicit expression before. However, I will pass away from that. I suppose I have said more than is sufficient on it. Why should not the State bear the ten per cent.? As the Deputy argued it, or as it appeared to me at any rate in this unhappy frame of mind in which, according to the Ceann Comhairle, I at present stand, he argued that this ten per cent. was in the nature of a bonus. Did he not repeat with approval the interjection of Deputy Gorey that it was a bonus, and that bonus is to be paid according to him out of the taxpayers' pocket. Now, all the time the argument is made agreeable to the public by being presented in this light, that the citizens of Ireland are to be subject to a financial contribution for the relief of the landlord. I invite him to put it the other way—although my friend Deputy Wilson will not allow it to be put in that way—namely, it is a levy upon the citizens of Ireland for the relief of the unpurchased tenant. And why? Because, as the Minister has just shown, £1,505, the purchase price to the vendor at £100 a year, if reduced by ten per cent., the plus, gives £1,368, which is the standard price or the price the tenant is to pay. So the tenant has to pay a considerably smaller amount and the reason is because the amount which is sufficient to induce the vendor to sell is made up by this contribution of ten per cent. Therefore, the proper way to look at it is, it is an expenditure of public moneys in securing that there shall be no more unpurchased tenants, and now that brings me to the point which the Chairman, I am sure, will insist is the point, should the State provide that ten per cent.? That is precisely one of the functions of the State, if you accept the account which I ventured to give of it a few moments ago. The State is the individual citizens in their collective and in their corporate capacity, doing for the individual what he cannot do for himself. The individual, as a unit of ordered organised society, is invested with the power to do to himself an advantage which, as an isolated individual, he would never be in a position to secure. The State here comes to the relief of that section of the citizens, the unpurchased tenants, and secures for them a benefit which so many of their neighbours secured twenty years ago, and from which they were shut out. Now, in all those bargains, in all payment of price, we look to see what has been purchased. What is bought here is peace, not for the farmer merely, but peace and quiet settling down to industry to the benefit of the entire nation. The contribution of this ten per cent. secures a huge benefit, not to-day or to-morrow, merely, but for all the succeeding years, and not to the farmer, merely, but to every citizen. Is it not right and fair that we should not put this ten per cent. contribution upon the farmer, who is hard set, even now, to meet the price so reduced? The farmers make a case—I am a diligent student of the case they put up in all its various forms—that those terms which the Minister for Agriculture thinks so good, but does not pretend that they are either delightfully or extravagantly good, are harsh ones. I dare say, in the case of some farmers, they are. Certainly, to many they are not tempting. Is it from these men we are to exact, by legislation, that additional contribution which induces the vendor to part with the land? I think, in every fair, broad, and long view of the situation, it is really the duty of the State in this case to supply the wherewithall that will enable this transaction which brings peace and advantage to the nation to be carried through.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Before Deputy Gorey begins, I may say the effect of paragraph (b), if it remains in the Money Resolution, if it is passed in Committee, and subsequently agreed to by the Dáil, will be that the State can pay a contribution to the price. Deputy Gorey may keep in mind the fact that an amendment could be moved in Committee, making the State contribution to the price 99.9 per cent. If paragraph (b) is deleted in accordance with Deputy Johnson's amendment there would be no provision for the State making any contribution to the price. That is the exact effect.

Mr. GOREY

I thank you for this guidance, but I do not think I need it. About the State contribution—I refrained from commenting on it on the First Reading and on the Second Reading, and I refrain from contributing to the debate now, except in so far as to mention something that may, perhaps, be interesting. Under all our previous purchases we had State bonuses—bonuses very far in excess of the 10 per cent. proposed in this clause. I am not able to give you the exact figures, but I am right in saying it was very much in excess of 10 per cent. Under the 1909 Act the less the price was the more the bonus was. Under the 1903 Act the more the price was the more the bonus was, so that I do not think anybody can contradict me about it, because they do not know enough about the figures. To say 12 per cent. would not be strictly a fact. But what I want to say is that those 70,000 unpurchased tenants as citizens of the State contributed their share of this bonus. They are a very small proportion of the State, but they have borne their share. Perhaps their Minister for Agriculture could give me the number of purchased tenants.

Mr. HOGAN

400,000.

Mr. GOREY

Is it a great crime to ask these 400,000 to do by the 70,000 as the 70,000 have done by them? The 70,000 bore, and will continue to bear, their share of those bonuses under the past transactions, and I do not think that a great hardship or a great load is put on the State by asking them to do for these 70,000 what they have done for them. I have said I will not refer to the case that is made for this 10 per cent. I see that bank charges are named, investments of charitable institutions are named, and I think we are really getting at the actual facts when we mention some of these concerns. I am not going to refer to them: it may be good policy for the State, and I do not intend to stand in the way of the State if it thinks it is right, and I make no comment on the figures.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the Minister for Agriculture put the case fairly when he said that the object of this 10 per cent. is to try to bring about some sort of peaceful settlement of this question, and that it is more or less of a gift, the purchase price of peace.

Mr. HOGAN

A gift to whom?

Mr. JOHNSON

A gift to the landlords, the purchase price of peace.

Mr. HOGAN

On a point of explanation, I did not say that. Even though I drew that particular statement from the Deputy now, I did not say it was a gift to the landlords. What I did say was that it was a contribution in order to relieve the tenant from the high rates of money current now as a result of the war.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to remind the Minister when he refutes with indignity—with indignation—perhaps I was right in saying indignity——

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Very proper; very right.

Mr. JOHNSON

Certainly it was not exactly delicacy when he spoke of this Bill being a compulsory Bill. He was ramming down the people's necks the proposition of purchase. They could not help themselves. This State, which has not a right to undo that which a previous organisation of the State did, is applying compulsion to make landlords give up their lands to the tenants at a price fixed by the State. Well, if that is not the State undoing that which the State did, I do not know what it is, and for the President to deny so fiercely the proposition that the State, having passed laws allowing landlords to draw rents from occupiers, and saying "Henceforward you shall not be allowed to draw rent from occupiers except on the terms that we lay down, and then only through our operation, for a limited number of years,"—if that is not undoing what was done, I do not know what it is. It is quite a common practice, of course, for the State to come along and say that something that was done once shall be repealed, and that something being done now may be repealed at some other time. Because, to make an assertion that a State can do these things does not mean to say that it ought, at the first opportunity, to do so. I am sufficiently a conservative, Deputy Magennis will be pleased to know, as to realise the necessity for something like continuity in a State policy. I am afraid of the Ceann Comhairle or I would attempt to follow Deputy Magennis. The question at issue is whether this sum, or any sum, should be paid out of the common Exchequer to the landlords, over and above the annual sum for a certain number of years which the tenants are called upon to pay. I consider, in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the history of land purchase, the fact that the landlords have had long notice that there would be, at some point, a compulsory deprivation of this power which the State gave them to extract rent from their working tenants, that there is no injustice in saying to these landlords, having had such notice, that the price which may be considered to be fair for the tenants to pay out of the annual produce of the soil—that part of the produce of the soil which the tenants can, year by year, afford to pay in annuities—may be for a number of years handed over to the landlords in compensation for this compulsory acquisition. That is a fair proposition, and to my mind would be in justice and equity quite sufficient compensation for the compulsory re-acquirement by the State of these lands. Ministers think otherwise. They think it is necessary that something additional should be paid. Well, that is purely a matter of expediency, a matter of consideration, whether it is enough or too much, or whether anything should be paid at all. Landlords say it is not enough. None of them have come along and said that it was too much, but some of them feel that it is better than they might have had, and they are prepared to accept it for fear that the next Dáil might not be so generous. There is no question of principle in it, no question of justice, only the question of a bargain. The proposition as stated by the Minister for Finance was, that if the buyer and seller of a beast in a fair cannot agree, and the State thinks that the prospective purchaser ought to have that beast as he could make better use of it, then the State comes along and says "We will split the difference by paying the difference ourselves." I quite agree with the President that that is a position which might frequently be taken. I am not disputing that as a principle, but I think that in this case, in view of the position of the landlords to the State and to the tenants, and in view of the notice they have had in regard to the coming of compulsion, and in view of the rents they have drawn during the last 20 or 30 years, awaiting this day of compulsory acquisition, in view of all these circumstances, there is no necessity in justice for this extra 10 per cent. to be paid out of the State coffers.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Before the matter is finally put to the vote, one point occurs to me. I had not the opportunity of listening to all the speeches, but in those I have heard, with the one exception of Deputy Gorey's speech, the assumption was always taken that this 10 per cent. contribution by the State, in order to complete and make possible this purchase, is a contribution that is to be given to the landlords. That has been confidently assumed, both in the case made, and also in the case responded to. Why is it not assumed that this 10 per cent. contribution is a contribution being made to the tenant in order to enable him to purchase satisfactorily under the present conditions?

Mr. JOHNSON

Satisfactorily to whom?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Satisfactorily to the tenant. That is an assumption that I think would entirely alter Deputy Johnson's case which has been addressed purely upon the point that the landlord is to receive this benefaction instead of the farmer, and, as Deputy Gorey already pointed out, that those who still remain unpurchased tenants will have a contribution made in their assistance by those who have purchased, just as they in their turn in times past made a contribution to those who purchased at an earlier stage. That, I take it, is the assumption under this Section of the Financial Resolution, and I believe, if it be looked at from that point of view, the entire case made by Deputy Johnson disappears.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I am in favour of the State bridging the difficulty, but I think the amount that should be fixed for that purpose would be more equitable as regards the bonuses that have been given in this respect under previous Land Purchase Acts, which covered the kingdom as far as I know, if the portion of them now which are attributable to the area outside us were commuted, and that amount placed as a bonus at the service of the unpurchased tenants. That I think would be more equitable than any bonus sum. However, I suppose the difficulty will be met in the Bill, but I think that it is not a remission of taxes, as far as I can see, and I think it could even afford to be higher than it is.

Question put. The Dáil divided.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If Deputy McCarthy wishes to have his vote recorded he must take his seat within the Dáil, in accordance with Standing Order 43.

Deputy McCarthy not attending in his place, his vote was not recorded.

The voting was:—Tá, 11; Níl, 47.

Tá

Tomás de Nógla.Tomás Mac Eoin.Tomás Ó Conaill.Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.Séamus Éabhróid.Liam Ó Daimhín.

Seán Ó Laidhin.Cathal Ó Seanáin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.

Níl

Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Donchadh Ó Guaire.Gearóid Ó Súileabháin.Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Seán Ó Duinnín.Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.Domhnall Ó Mocháin.Séamus Breathnach.Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.Seosamh Mac Suibhne.Peadar Mac a' Bháird.Darghal Figes.Seán Ó Ruanaidh.Mícheál de Duram.Seán Mac Garaidh.Mícheál de Staineas.Éarnán Altún.Sir Séamus Craig.Gearóid Mac Giobúin.Liam Thrift.Eoin Mac Néill.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Pádraig Ó hÓgáin.

Pádraic Ó Máille.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Piaras Beaslaí.Fionán Ó Loingsigh.Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.Criostóir Ó Broin.Risteárd Mac Liam.Proinsias Bulfin.Séamus Ó Dóláin.Aindríu Ó Láimhín.Liam Ó hAodha.Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.Éamon Ó Dúgáin.Peadar Ó hAodha.Séamus Ó Murchadha.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Alasdair Mac Cába.Tomás Ó Domhnaill.Earnán de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Domhnall Ó Broin.Séamus de Burca.Mícheál Ó Dúbhghaill.

Amendment declared lost.

Main question put and agreed to.