As regards compulsion, yes, but the terms are different, I admit. The Minister, to use his own words, said, "We are meeting the position put up by the unpurchased tenants of the Saorstát, to force a Land Bill and to force an ending of this trouble." We refuse to pay rent, and we refuse to pay anything, in future, but annuities. I admit the Minister has met that fairly. The great question is that the agreements of 1920, and their monetary consideration, must be radically altered, and are, to a certain extent, altered by the conditions that prevail now in 1923. Anybody who has an eye to see, or who pays any attention to matters moving around, must know that the conditions in 1918 and in 1920, as compared with now are radically changed. The agricultural position is different altogether to-day from what it was then. Anybody who looks around the country to-day realises that the economic conditions that prevailed then, and the rates of the figures of purchase that prevailed then, are not obtaining to-day, and anybody who observes the burden that the State has to bear will be struck with the difference between the position prevailing now and what prevailed then. The purchase figures must be calculated so as to meet this difference. There is a good deal of sympathy here for one class of the community—the landlords. Some people call it "justice" and other people call it "fair play all round," and even some go to prove the innocence of these people. I have seen it stated in the papers that these people did not obstruct land purchase, and did not interfere with these things at all, but helped land purchase in every way. I have a letter here received by a tenant after the passing of the Wyndham Act. It is dated February 8th, 1905, and it is addressed to a gentleman named John Flynn. It is in reply to a letter demanding the right to purchase under the Wyndham Act, and it is only one, out of a hundred or a hundred and fifty similar letters that we could produce, and it reads:—"Sir, You may inform those, in whose behalf your letter appears to have been written that I have no intention of selling my property, and no intention of reducing rents, because sales have taken place on neighbouring properties, and, under these circumstances, I cannot receive a deputation to discuss such subjects. I may add that any of my tenants who want to see me can do so individually at any time." That is a sample of the attitude, one out of hundreds, of, those people towards every Land Act that was passed.
Now, with regard to the question of price, the price set out in the Bill falls very far short of the demand we put forward, and that applies both to price and arrears. I will deal with the question of price first. They are not even as high as the prices put up by Father Maguire on behalf of the unpurchased tenants of Co. Monaghan. These were 45 per cent. on first term rents, 40 per cent. on second term rents, and 35 per cent. on third term. Even that, which was the smallest demand of any county in Ireland except one, has not been met.
Deputy McGoldrick told us on Friday last a good deal about figures. I am sorry he is not here this evening, because I would like to have a talk with him about his figures. Can he deny, or can any Deputy in the Dáil deny, that a purchased tenant under the 1903 Act of a first term rental has benefited more by a reduction than the capital sum of less than 4.20 or not more than six years' purchase? Any purchaser under the 1903 Act could not be in receipt of a capital sum of less than 4.20, or more than six years, that is to say, that to the extent of a little less than four and a quarter of the capital sum he is better off than the man who never purchased. Four and a quarter years' purchase is a big thing as regards the financial position of the unpurchased tenants of this country, and would be a big thing now if taken into consideration with regard to this Purchase Bill. If four and a half years' purchase, with the rate of interest at 4½ per cent., were taken into consideration now, it would bring the present price to the unpurchased tenants of the country down to about 9½ or 10 years' purchase. I would like to know what Deputy McGoldrick based his figures on when he said that there was only a point in the difference as between 35 per cent. and 36 per cent. I would like to know what he was talking about. Was he making a comparison as between the time when the interest on purchase money was 2¾ per cent., compared with 3 per cent. or 4½ per cent. now? With regard to arrears, the Government has put it in their Bill that three years' arrears are to be considered, subject to a 25 per cent. reduction. On the Committee Stage we, acting on behalf of our people, will submit an amendment that only two years be considered instead of three, and that these two years' arrears be subject to a 40 per cent. reduction; adding one year to the purchase money, the other to be paid in cash. The majority of the unpurchased tenants of the country are poor men, small holders, with rentals from £5 to £25. Everyone in the country knows that the last three years have not been years of plenty; they have been lean years, and everyone acquainted with the condition of the country knows that men with these small rentals could not have amassed or could not have made money. To ask them now to pay three years' arrears on the purchase of their property would be asking them to do something which it would be impossible for them to do. People engaged in agriculture made no money in the year 1921; the land was worked at a loss, and there was no money made either in the following year, and as far as I can see there is very little money going to be made this year. Men in a small way who had to meet these losses, and who had to face facts and pay their way, had no money laid aside to meet three years' arrears now. If three years' arrears were to be added to the purchase it would mean that these men would have to go to the banks, if the banks were good enough or foolish enough, to give them the money, but what I submit is that you are asking these to do what is impossible. It must be remembered, too, that adding a year's rent to the purchase money now is a different proposition altogether to adding a year's rent to purchase money under the Wyndham Act, when the interest on purchase money was 2¾ per cent., while the present rate is 4½ per cent. Adding a year's rent to the purchase money now would be almost like adding two years under the Wyndham Act, and I ask the Minister to take a note of that fact. Anyone dealing with finance, or dealing with the people, cannot ignore the fact that, adding one year's rent to the purchase money now is equal, almost, to two years' rent under the Wyndham Act. I also want to say a word on behalf of a small body of third-term tenants. They number, I believe, about 5,000. These were men who, when their second term was up, went into the Courts. At that time the country was gradually forcing itself ahead; it was building up reserves and there was prosperity all round. There was security for everyone, and men knew what they were doing, and could make fairly accurate anticipations as to the future. When sowing their crops they could tell almost to within 6d. per barrel as to what they were going to get for their barley and oats, and it was the same as regards the sale of their cattle in the autumn. They could tell almost to within 10/- per head as to what the cattle would realise, and it was the same with the dairy farmer. He knew what his income was going to be. But the position is quite different to-day. No one knows what is going to happen, and there is no security or guarantee for those engaged in the agricultural industry. There is no steadiness in the industry. A man may sow a crop to-day, but someone else may reap it, or even worse, burn it to-morrow. My point is that these third-term tenants ought to be put on the same level as the second-term tenants. I notice from the Bill that there is no provision for lease-holders, except short lease-holders, or future tenants, or holders under fee-farm grants.
Probably that is an omission. It will be our duty as representing the people whom we do represent to put down amendments including all these tenancies, in fact any person who is occupying land at present. We view with pleasure the condition under which those in possession of uneconomic holdings and the landless men of the country are going to get a reasonable and decent way of living. We have been agitating for this and other sections of our people have been agitating before us, and I do congratulate the Government on this ranch-breaking proposal. It is something that has not been contained in any previous measure, and has never before been agreed to, and I do congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and the Government on handling this question in no uncertain manner. I am glad, too, that the evicted tenants—I mean the genuine evicted tenants, not the professional ones who are making capital out of it—will get a fair show, and I hope that will apply not alone to the evicted tenants since 1881, but since 1870, because it was the men who fought since 1870 who made the 1881 position. It was the men who were victimised and had to go on the roadside to draw attention to the condition of things who made this a living issue, and I think we ought to go back to 1870 at least. We demand, and we will put down amendments demanding a 40 per cent. reduction in the three classes of judicial rents dealt with in the Bill. There is no use discussing the question of amendments now, or making speeches about them, but we will put down amendments demanding that reduction, and I think that the majority of this Dáil ought to be with us in making that demand, because I do not think it is asking too much.
With regard to the sporting and fishing rights, I would like to deal with the sporting rights first. I see it is proposed in the Bill to reserve the sporting rights to the Land Commission. I know a little about preservation and about game. I have had a little to do with these matters in my time. It is a different matter altogether when you are dealing with game on untenanted lands or mountains, than it is when you are dealing with the game on the tenanted lands. There may be game on the untenanted lands and mountains in the hands of the landlord, but it is mainly the tenants who have kept any game there is on the tenanted lands of the country. It is the tenants that have preserved these lands and not the landlords. I never knew a landlord to preserve tenanted land. I can conceive no position in which you could look with more certainty to the destruction of game than if you were to make the tenant hostile to your laws. In a short time you would not have a head of game in the country if that were done. Without the co-operation and good will of the occupiers of the land game would disappear absolutely in six months from this country.
