Unusual as it may seem, I would like to preface my remarks by a few words of personal explanation. The farmers of Ireland. more especially the farmers in my own county, did me the honour of electing me to a responsible position in their organisation. I also hold a responsible position on the Central Governing Body in that Union. I wish now to state clearly that, in the matter of this Land Bill, I have neither advised nor have I been consulted, nor have I attended any of the meetings of that body, either locally or at headquarters. Therefore, I am speaking entirely unconnected with that body. It may seem unnecessary to make this explanation, but uninformed people sometimes draw erroneous conclusions, and in the interests of the organisation and discipline, I think that my remarks are justified. This Bill has undoubtedly been received very favourably. The Minister, rightly so, in my humble opinion, has been congratulated from all sides on the skill, the tact, and the ability with which he has brought this Bill to its present stage. I, therefore, hope in no way, or in anything I say, to mar that happy atmosphere, but of course one has to approach this question with independent judgments, and so far as one is led to conclusions by reason and conviction, one has to state them. I am sure no member of the Seanad would wish to act otherwise, but one or two of my colleagues, whose opinion I highly value, have suggested to me that it is undesirable to do anything to introduce controversy into this debate.
But, on the other hand, if one feels that one has a responsible duty to perform, one has to do it. The fortunes of a large section of our countrymen for years to come, as well as the peace and progress of our country, depend very much and will turn on the treatment of its main industry, which is the land. The land question in Irish history, I need only mention this very briefly, has been one long record of struggle. I need not take the Seanad over the history of the matter, even if I were competent to do so, but since the Union there have been a number of recurrent, and frequently recurring, measures to try and settle this controversial subject.
This Bill probably marks the final stage of a definite cycle. The landlords, or the land owners as we know them, who came into being as the descendents, speaking generally, of the Tudor or Stuart period, are now, under this Bill, being finally dealt with. And here, in passing, I would remark that now it is probably considered a good thing to have reached this final stage, but in how far it is a good thing I do not know if other members share this same feeling. As one goes around the country one does come across feelings of regret, perhaps not articulate, but deep down in the hearts of many people. I do not want to elaborate this point, but I do further say, as a distinguished Senator on my right recently said—as a whole there are, no doubt, many exceptions—the landlord classes have been the expression of culture in our country, and, to that extent, I think we must all agree that many people in humble positions in life do agree and feel that their passing is a loss. That feeling may not be expressed in words, but a great poet has said: "The things that are, are with more spirit chased than enjoyed." Now, unfortunately, this Irish question may resemble, or may find an analogy or parallel in the vegetable world. When any species is approaching the end of its life, nature provides it with the means for its own reproduction.
It forms a seed, and that seed in due course, under the generous influence of nature fructifies into the plant. I am afraid that these conditions are to be repeated, and that this Bill will not mark the end of agrarian unrest, that while one plant may die, a new plant will grow in its place, the offspring of the lusty parent. Now, to deal with the passing of the old order I have very little to say. I cannot endorse the exact language of some who described the price the landlords have received as just. Merciful it is, I will admit, and I also say it is as much as we could expect the present Government, situated as it is financially and otherwise, to give. It represents a substantial loss of income to many who can ill afford to bear it. There is a pledge the British Government gave, or there was a pledge which, I presume, still holds, that before the political question was finally disposed of, justice would be done to the landlords. There is yet time to redeem that pledge, and I believe honour demands that it should be redeemed by making, from non-Irish funds, the price more just than it has been to those being bought out.
With regard to the arrears, owners, I think, entertain different views to those they hold in the matter of price. While they feel that the Irish Government has done the best they could in difficult circumstances, they also feel that the conduct of the general body of unpurchased tenants has been unwarranted. It is admitted that old habits are hard to break. It must also be remembered that the Plan of Campaign, of which the recent outbreak is the lineal descendant, was launched at a time when conditions were different. Since that time rents have been much reduced by Government tribunals, which even the tenants will admit have not been biassed in favour of the owners. The refusal to pay rents follows on a period of agricultural prosperity, which is not only common knowledge, but is evidenced from the great increases in bank deposits, which must mainly come from the agricultural classes. While the landlords in England were able to increase their rents substantially during the war, the landlords in Ireland were possibly the only class in Ireland excluded from a share of the general prosperity. It is hard to say who has benefited by this reprehensible behaviour. The good name of the tenants and their reputation for honesty have been lowered, and the good name of the farmers generally has been discredited by this refusal to pay rent. Mortgagees and chargees dependent on their annuities from Irish estates have been brought to the brink of destitution. The Government itself has been put into the most difficult and uncalled for position by being pressed to withhold the execution of the law in favour of a certain section and a certain class. Labour had of necessity to submit to unemployment for the farmers' benefit. Generally the Government has been confronted in this matter by a position only less difficult to handle than that of Irregularism itself. Let us hope this Bill marks an end of this unpleasant episode.
Now, turning to the future of the Bill, I would ask the Seanad to try if possible to approach this matter in the spirit of judicial detachment. I once met a gentleman in the war who called himself a publicity expert, and he described this extraordinary science of publicity. I need not weary the Seanad with what he said about this subtle doctrine, but he said he doubted if there were more than very few people who, if you attack them the right way with publicity propaganda, you would not divert from a true sense of judgment. I suppose lawyers above all people, and Judges especially, are able to resist the suggestions that come from outside sources. But I think the ordinary person who does not have time to study or is not qualified to study documents and verify references, is in very grave danger of being quite unconsciously, with the best intentions, led to form erroneous ideas upon and wrong conclusions on any subject, especially that which has only hastily and only recently obtained prominence, like this actual Bill. The provisions of this Bill, which enable, in the Minister's own words, any land to be taken anywhere for the relief of congestion, deserve on our part the most careful consideration. Admittedly they are far-reaching. The Minister probably can correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt if any Statute Book in any country in the world contains proposals of so drastic a character as these. In Australia, where it was necessary to take, in the interest of the community, these big holdings, it was done in a different way by means of graduated taxation, but it was a just and efficient way. The full powers of land nationalisation are to be put into force under this Bill. By compulsion land can be taken. I admit that it has got to be distributed, and on redistribution its control passes from the Government. But the Government can take all the land, and to that extent I submit this Bill is a colourable imitation of nationalisation. Not that nationalisation may not be good; I do not say it is not, and I have no doubt it is supported. If the Seanad, on the whole, considers as a policy that land nationalisation is good, then this Bill deserves its support. Those who do not favour land nationalisation should logically oppose the measure. I am sure there are some such present, and for that reason I feel it my duty to enter a warning in respect of this Bill. Now, I want to examine the more particular aspect of what was meant by the relief of congestion. I am first going to examine it on the plain meaning of the word, on its bona fide and agreed interpretation. We need not go into details. Relief of congestion means the relief of congests—taking men who are congests and putting them into larger holdings, and thus making a larger number of economic holdings throughout the country. Now, it is necessary, before we adopt a virtual measure of land nationalisation, that we should realise how far we can go in that very much to be commended direction of giving everybody an economic holding. I hope to examine the figures of this more closely. We had evidence this morning before the Agricultural Commission of a gentleman who made a study of this subject, Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp.
Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp's evidence was to this effect: If you take all the land tenanted and untenanted over 100 acres east of the Shannon, and add to that all the land tenanted and untenanted over 50 acres west of the Shannon, the total of the two will not provide enough land to give every congest, under the old definition which is now swept away, an economic holding. So that is what it is worth. Senators can verify this. The references are difficult to find, but they can be got, and they are mainly to be found in the report of the Dudley Commission. If you take all the land over 100 acres, you would not be able to deal fully with this problem of congestion. And then what about the evicted tenants and the landless men and the congests outside of the congested districts? They ought to be dealt with in equity. You have to face the fact that on the one hand you can only partially relieve by these far-reaching powers bona
fide congestion, and on the other hand you have the feeling of insecurity which any measure of compulsion like that must bring to an existing occupier. You must look at this thing in the terms of what powers are enacted. We all have perfect confidence that the present Government will not use those powers harshly, and that a Farmers' Government will not, perhaps, use those powers harshly. I do not wish to form the conclusion that a Labour Government will use those powers harshly, but I do suggest that a Government might come in that would use those powers harshly when they are there, and I can conceive people who wish to use those powers harshly—followers or disciples of Karl Marx—saying, when they are together in conference, “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad; when we come in, therefore, without firing a shot, we will have got all the powers the master himself would give us.” That is a serious matter, and I am open to correction if my interpretation is wrong. We must look at how this thing would operate by whom and when it is applied. That feeling, if it grows, must have a deleterious effect on work and development. It must tend to deter occupiers from putting their best energy and their savings back into the land. That has always been the trouble in this country—getting men to develop by fixing their money in their buildings, fencing, drainage, etc. That feeling of insecurity, which has always accompanied land tenure in this country, has militated against this intensive farming that we so much admire in other countries—Denmark, for example—and that we wish to have here. Grass farming, which is so rightly on general principles condemned, will and must continue so long as you have insecurity of tenure, which, I fear, is not relieved by the compulsory measures in this Bill.
Now I come to another aspect of this case. What is a congest? Hitherto I have assumed that a congest is what we all generally believe a congest to be. I understand there has never been any definition of what a congest is. It has been tried, and the effort failed. I think some of us are going to try again, on the Committee Stage, and we hope the Minister will sympathetically consider our attempts to define a congest, and to that extent to limit within safe grounds the operation of those compulsory powers. In my attempt to discover what a congest was, and what these compulsory powers mean, I naturally read the debates, and more especially the statements of the Minister. After all, that is the usual way. When you want to know what the Government mean, you read the Ministerial statements. I would not for a moment offend the laws of fair debate by taking the statements, made by anybody before he is a Minister and confronting him with them when he is a Minister; but I think it is quite fair to take what a Minister says a fortnight ago and hold him by those words. In the debate of the 4th July, on page 2795 of Hansard, the Minister is reported: "Further, go outside the congested areas. Let us take it the Land Commission buy 1,000 acres of land, and that the acreage is held under one title. They have to buy the whole of it. They are not going to buy two or three holdings out of it. They may require only 50 acres for congests. There may be one congest in the neighbourhood, and when he is dealt with the balance is all for landless men. Though they require the land compulsorily for the relief of congestion, they buy it because it is held under one title. It is just one estate and one farm. They buy it for the relief of congestion." Now, that is not mentioned once. I could give three extracts from Ministerial state ments, but I need not worry the Seanad with them. Those statements confirm my view and make us uneasy about the relief of congestion. In fact, if we take those words with their plain meaning, they mean this, that under the cloak of the relief of congestion you can acquire land and put one congest on it, and then you can let in all and sundry on it. I see nothing to prevent you going to the market-place in the city and taking any men you find there. They are landless men. You can put them in on the balance of the land you acquire—the land that, under the Statute, you claim to be taking only for the relief of congestion. It is for that reason I do suggest that these compulsory powers require the most careful consideration. This Bill has admittedly been hurried through, as more legislation has been hurried through, and it is our function to prevent undue haste. These measures are complicated, and the reason that men of experience and mature judgment were put on this Assembly was that they could pause and try to examine in a quasi-judicial sense, and prevent in a moment of haste a dangerous measure being enacted which might affect the wealth, production, and the security and prosperity of important classes in this country for years to come. It appears to me that if the interpretation of the Minister is correct, and the Bill is administered in the sense that I have indicated, instead of having, as in the past, class against class, you are very likely to have man against man, and that in the new order may be something even worse than the old. What we should do, and I am sure my brother Senators will agree, is to try, as far as we can through our laws, to bring about goodwill and good relations between all classes, and, if I may say so, to bring the principles of the Ten Commandments into the daily life of our people; to exclude from our laws any measures that do not make for the peace, progress, and prosperity of all classes.