Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Aug 1923

Vol. 1 No. 38

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LAND BILL, 1923.—COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name, which is:—"In Section 29 (1) to delete all after the word ‘congests' in line 36 to the end of Sub-section."

These words give the Land Commission power to interfere with the farmer in the management of his holding. As they would be applied by many, they would be applied towards more tillage. That would be undoubtedly a popular interpretation placed upon increasing the food supply, and also bearing upon the manner in which the holding has been used. On general grounds I am opposed to these words. It is an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject, in not allowing him to use his own property in the way he thinks best. There is a third point. There is no one capable of deciding how agricultural land can be used to the best advantage. I have been sitting for many months on the Agricultural Commission, the terms of reference of which have been to report on this question of tillage, and the possibility and desirability of increasing tillage which undoubtedly would be the effect or would be attempted if these provisions were allowed to be enacted. Now we had overwhelming evidence that in the case of almost every crop—I cannot think of any exception—the cost of production is far greater than the market price. Well, carry that to its logical consequences. If the Land Commission or the Board of Agriculture or their technical advisers, will advise the Land Commission that there is not sufficient tillage, or in their wisdom, which is largely academic, that the farming practised was not correct, they would have power to resume their retained farm and give it to people who, they consider, might use it to better advantage.

I hope in this matter I will receive the support of at least the farmer Senators, because it is a prominent plank in the programme of the Farmers' Party, that a man should be allowed to farm his land as he likes. There is a popular idea that this grass land is used improperly because it is used for grazing purposes. There is an overwhelming body of expert evidence which says that from every point of view that is the right way of farming land. In face of that I do claim that it is unwarranted for a bureaucracy—because that is what they are, and I do not mean the word in any malign sense—it is I say unwarranted for a bureaucracy to have the power to come in and say to a man "You are not farming your land in the right way." I see that these powers are welcomed, as I expected they would, in certain quarters. But look at it this way—these so-called experts in the Department of Agriculture are out of touch, most of them, with practical farming for many years. I would ask the Minister to give us evidence that any one of his officials, his expert advisers in the Board of Agriculture, who will be people from the County Instructor upwards, has done any practical work on a farm since entering the Government service. Without practical knowledge of this work, you are not competent to tell a man how to do his business. Therefore I say that this Clause is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. It might be used, and in all probability will be used, to introduce by a side wind this dangerous innovation, the doctrine of compulsory tillage, and for that reason it should be opposed.

The MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

I am not going to discuss the question as to whether officials of the Department of Agriculture are practical farmers or not, except to say that Sir John Keane's speech reminds me of the small farmer in the country who insists on cutting hay with the scythe on the grounds that he is against machinery, and "what do the experts know about it anyway?" The question does not arise in this Section. I was wondering why Sir John Keane wanted to adjourn this Bill over the Election. If he wants to adjourn this Bill over the Election in order to raise an issue of compulsory tillage, an issue I do not want to raise, and an issue which no sensible man in the country wants to raise, then I say there is applicable the Latin maxim: "quem di vult perdere dementant”—“those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.”

There is no warranty here for stating that the Land Commission can compel a man to increase his tillage. He did not say that; he suggested it; that the Bill would compel a man to till a certain area of his land, and that this is really a law brought in by a side wind, that a certain percentage of the land was to be tilled. We know that is a dangerous question; we know that it is a difficult question, and every practical farmer knows that there is a lot of nonsense talked about compulsory tillage. I am the last man to raise that question on which every academician in the country wants to spread himself. It was not raised here. The words in the Bill are: "And in exercising the powers aforesaid shall have regard to the necessity and desirability of increasing the food supply in the country." This refers to a retained holding because it is over £3,000 in value, and that is a direction to the Land Commission. I want the Senators to realize this, that when the Land Commission are considering whether they shall sell a man £3,000 worth of land, the limitation in the Bill, or £4,000 worth, which they have a discretion to sell, or £5,000 or £6,000 worth, they shall take into account whether he is the sort of farmer who owned anything between 400 acres and 1,000 acres of land, and used to, under the 11 month system, set 500 acres for grazing. That is a direction that the Land Commission shall take into account. Is it suggested that the Land Commission shall not take that into account when exercising their discretion? That is what I would like to know.

Now, that is the meaning of these words in the Bill, and they bear no other meaning. I want to say that I stand here for the right of the Land Commission to do that absolutely, and that we are to know where we stand in that matter. I further say that I think that is the safest and most conservative and most just method of doing something, to deal with that particular question that I put to you just now, a question that is really at the bottom of the land war. I want to say just one other thing. I promised An Cathaoirleach that I would not make many long speeches to-day——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am used to it now.

Mr. HOGAN

It is not for pleasure I am doing it. It is a long and complicated Bill, and there is an attempt to interpret the clauses. This land question which we are trying to solve in this Bill became acute in 1918. The Land Conference of 1918 was set up to deal with it. It was discussed at great length, and they appointed a special Committee consisting of Dr. Stewart the Bishop of Ross, Lord Cloncurry and Walter E. Callan and one or two others.

The EARL of MAYO

Mr. Callan was Secretary, I think.

Mr. HOGAN

They appointed that Committee to make recommendations. They made recommendations, and, as a result of these recommendations, the Land Bill of 1920 was prepared. The Land Bill of 1920 is in all respects the same as the final draft of this Bill, with the exception of some changes in details. That Bill was introduced. It was circulated to the Land Owners' Convention, and to every important body in the country, and to the Farmers' Union. I have the Chief Secretary's file in the matter. I have all the reports. It was debated through the country all through 1920. The report of the Committee on whose recommendations the Bill was prepared was published long before 1920. The Bill itself was published in June 1920, and it was before the country from June 1920, until the end of 1921. It was expressly circulated to the Land Owners' Convention, and to all important bodies in the country. This Section, Section 29, the resumption Section, dealing with tenancies, was used word for word—though I should not say word for word, for in some cases the provisions have been shortened.

They were in two Sections of the Bill of 1920, and we have put them into one. That is Section 29. There was a difference made between congested areas and non-congested areas in the Bill and there were different sections. But in fact and detail these sections are the same and they mean the same thing. These were before the country from 1920 until the end 1921, and they were accepted expressly by the Land Owners' Convention. I read their acceptance.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Would it be too much if the actual document would be produced?

Mr. HOGAN

"The only practical solution in the present state of affairs" were their words. I do not think any member of the Land Owners' Convention here, with the exception of Sir John Keane, will deny that.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The war was on then.

Mr. HOGAN

This was in 1920 and 1921. The Farmers' Union was in existence then. Sir John Keane was a member of both. Was there ever a protest against these provisions? They were before the country, and I presume the Farmers' Union had an interest in the country. Was there ever a protest against any section in that Bill? Not one. They were accepted in fact, and every man here knows it. And now in 1923, when the settlement of the land question is five times as difficult, when every wrecker in the country is doing his level best in every direction, I am faced with histrionics on every question arising in the Bill. I will not say any more. I will leave it to the horse sense of the Seanad.

The EARL of MAYO

I admit every word the Minister in charge of the Bill has said; but I wish to make him aware of something, and I wish to make the Seanad aware of something. After the war there was brought in a Bill which affected England, Wales and Scotland. It was with regard to the breaking up of land, which was done in those three countries in the most extraordinary and arbitrary manner, and it was brought up in our House and we got Ireland included in the Bill. I wish to confine myself to the words "the desirability of increasing the food supply of the country." I know English landlords very well indeed, and I may say a great many of them are some of my oldest friends. The arbitrary powers of that Bill and the way in which they were carried out would astonish you, particularly in regard to the extraordinary way in which officers who knew nothing whatsoever about tillage, grass lands or gardens, were appointed. Those officers would say "this has got to be ploughed up; if you do not do it we shall do it for you and charge you with the expense."

Lord Cloncurry saw that it would be useful to apply this Bill to Ireland. We got it applied to this country and it was passed. The Board of Agriculture sent over their representatives and they told us the country would be ruined and all that sort of thing, but we were accustomed to that type of argument. The House of Lords saw the sense of it and passed the Bill. I only mention that to make the Minister wise as to what occurred after the war. The feeling amongst landlords in England was so strong that one after another got up and gave instances of the extraordinary and arbitrary way in which even gardens were treated, gardens that were actually planted with fruit trees. The officers would say, "This is no good; we want more wheat and oats and barley and you will have to plough the land up." When those arguments were adduced, the House, which consisted of very large landowners, listened to them but they passed the measure all the same. I think it was wise of Lord Cloncurry to get it passed for Ireland. I know that wheat is the staff of life. We produce not only corn in certain parts of this country but the finest wheat in the world, except, perhaps, the very finest Scotch wheat. I have only stated that in order to make the Seanad and the Minister wise on this subject.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I do not think there is much use in talking about wheat or the compulsory regulations which occurred during war conditions. It is important to remember that the larger the number of holdings you have in the country the greater amount of tillage and probably the greater amount of food production there will be. The real reason I rise is to say that I am glad we are now clear on this subject. The Minister has made it clear that he stands for the right of the Land Commission to deal arbitrarily, if you like, with a certain type of land. That is the land which is used—or in my opinion is not used—for the purpose of setting on the eleven months' system. I support this Bill absolutely so far as it deals with that principle. I do not see how Sir John Keane's amendment is framed in such a way as would enable him to keep that principle and at the same time to safeguard the homes about which he is interested. If he can make out an amendment which safeguards the home of a person I will support him, if it does not cut into this most essential principle of the Bill which the Seanad now understands.

Doctor GOGARTY

I might, perhaps, break new ground by getting back to the gist of the subject which is really the powers conferred on the Government and not so much the question of whether Ireland is an agricultural country, which I do not believe. The reason I think that Ireland is more fertile than any other country is because the highest food value comes directly from the vegetable. The powers conferred upon the Government are really what are behind Senator Sir John Keane's motion. It is not always a capable and persuasive Mr. Hogan we will have to deal with. We are handing powers of invasion of the home to a future Government which we cannot forecast and which may be a bureaucracy. It may be a Government chiefly influenced by what is behind the congests; that is the man who has not got any land. I say the man who is behind the congest is the man who has not any land. He will be far more the vis a tergo particularly as the Dáil has made land fluid and it is taking away for the first time the fixity of tenure in Irish land.

It is really an influence which is very detrimental to government. It is almost contradictory to government because without analysing deeply the basis of government it is very easy to say that on some fixity the power of government depends and anything that will alter a man's assurance that he will live in his house and hand it on will at the same time alter the power and solidarity of any Government. It is as I say, not in defiance of Mr. Hogan's excellent intentions but from a feeling that excellent as they are in these two small matters, particularly the last clause, with regard to how the holding is worked, I think that that clause would be construed by an unfriendly Government or a Government of landless men which would be a Government of Bolshevists or retro-Congests as a punitive clause. Therefore not on account of the character of the land or on account of the excellent philanthropy of the Bill but on account of too much power being construed in a future which we cannot forecast, I support the amendment of Sir John Keane.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Richard A. Butler.
• John C. Counihan.
• Dowager Countess of Desart.
• Oliver St. John Gogarty.
• Sir John Keane.
• Thomas Linehan.
• Michael O'Dea.
• Sir William Hutcheson Poe.

Níl

• James Green Douglas.
• Michael Cummins.
• Peter de Loughry.
• Michael Duffy.
• Thomas Farren.
• Rt. Hon. Earl of Granard.
• Mrs. Alice Stopford Green.
• Henry Seymour Guinness.
• Arthur Jackson.
• Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
• Patrick Williams Kenny.
• Edward MacEvoy.
• John MacLoughlin.
• Edward MacLysaght.
• Thomas MacPartlin.
• James Moran.
• John Thomas O'Farrell.
• William Sullivan.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. LINEHAN

My amendment was: Section 29, sub-section (1), to insert after this Sub-section a new Sub-section (2) as follows:—"(2) When any land is resumed by the Land Commission there shall be paid to the former owner or tenant full compensation based upon the market value of the land at the time of such resumption." I had an opportunity of reading the provisions of the Acts especially regarding Section (5) of the Act of 1881, which provides for the compensation to the tenant of the portion of his holding that would be resumed. I also heard the Minister's statement last evening that the compensation would be the amount of the tenancy when sold in the open market at a fair rent. I am satisfied that that meets my point and I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put: "That Sections 29 and 30 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

SECTION 31 (c and f).

(1) Advances may be made to the following persons or bodies for the purchase by them from the Land Commission of parcels of land:—

(c) A person who within 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Purchase Acts apply, and who was evicted from that holding in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of his landlord, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative.

(f) Any other person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to move: Section 31, sub-section (1) to delete in lines 48 and 49 the words "within twenty-five years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903," and to substitute therefor the words "since the fourteenth day of August, 1878." The object of this amendment is to include amongst the class of persons commonly known as evicted tenants people who have been evicted since the passing of the 1903 Act. The date mentioned in my amendment is the 14th August, 1878, and it is exactly the same date as that mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

Senator Linehan omitted to tell us one thing and that is where the land is to come from and how the land would be any good to the tenants if it were to be bought at market value. It was consideration as to where the land was to come from that made us draw the line we have drawn. He voted yesterday for land being bought at market value which Mr. Counihan described as being worth £100 an acre. That is the kind of thing you are up against when you are trying to settle the land problem.

Mr. LINEHAN

I wish to refer to what the Minister has stated with reference to the point as to where the land was to come from. The Land Commission are taking all untenanted and unpurchased land in Ireland and I regard the claims of the evicted tenants as quite as important as the claims of any congests. I would point out that it was through the sufferings of these men in former years that it was possible to have a Land Act at all and without them there would probably be no Congested Districts Board. I am sorry that the Minister has ignored the claims of this important body. I think they are as much entitled to a fair portion of this land as any other body. This amendment would bring in any tenants evicted since 1903.

Mr. HOGAN

The Senator thinks that all the evicted tenants from the days of Brian Boru or at least since the year 1878 should be dealt with, but that untenanted land should be bought at £100 an acre. There is nothing like having it both ways.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I beg to move: Section 31, sub-section 1 to delete in line 48 the figures "25" and to substitute therefor the figures "33."

This is an amendment of a somewhat similar kind. I was endeavouring to put the date back to 1870 instead of 1903, and I suppose I shall be told that I also want to go back to the days of Brian Boru, though I suppose as a Clareman I have some right to do so. The Minister cannot however tell me that I said that the land is worth £100 an acre but I suppose he will not accept this amendment as he would not accept the other. The date 1878 is purely arbitrary whereas the date 1870 was a definite era in the land war and marked an avalanche of land evictions.

Amendment put and negatived.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg to move to delete lines 61 and 62 in sub-section 1. We recognise amongst these various people to whom parcels of land may be given certain old familiar faces—the evicted tenant and the proprietor of a holding which is not economic. We further see some new faces—the labourer who by the re-sale of land was deprived of his employment. We could form our own opinion on them but there are moreover masked men whom we cannot see. I do not think it is fair to give the Government power to put anybody they like on the land.

It is undesirable to take men without experience of land and put them on it. We have to keep in mind the best use of our natural resources. It has been proved right down the ages and in England recently that putting men without any knowledge of the land upon it is to court disaster. They have to be financed out of the pockets of the taxpayers and you run the risk of landing them into bankruptcy. It is of course quite possible that use could be made of that not by the Minister but by a Government of a later day who had not the acute perception on agricultural matters which the present Government may possess.

Mr. HOGAN

There are no new faces, as Sir John Keane has stated. We are going back to the Act of 1909.

"(1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission (a) advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons (a) a person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding £10 in rateable value; (b) a person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion.

"A person who has been twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903 the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Act applies, and who is not at the date of the purchase a tenant or proprietor of that holding; (c) or in case such a person is dead the person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and (d) any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after adequate provision has been made to satisfy the requirements of the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this sub-section an advance ought to be made.”

That is the Land Act of 1909. We know the provisions for acquiring land that are in the Bill. This deals with cases where you have land offered, Suppose you offer to buy a parcel of five hundred acres. The owner has seven hundred in the parcel and says "take the whole of it." The Land Commission, that has always had that power, is not to have it in future. There is one change only and that is the word "body." They might make an advance to trustees for the purpose of dairying near a town. I explained the special significance of the word "body" There might be a little thinking amongst agriculturists instead of hot air, and we might be able to arrive at some organisation that would make the little land that is over go further. That Section in my opinion is vital to the Bill.

Mr. BENNETT

I quite agree that that Section is necessary and I am satisfied with the arrangement. I hope those powers will be exercised strenuously. I know people formerly did not use them properly. I think the Government have dealt well with the situation and I hope they will enforce the powers properly.

Amendment put and negatived.

Question: "That Section 31 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Where the owner of a parcel of untenanted land which is vested in the Land Commission by virtue of this Act uses and cultivates the same as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry; then

(c) If the price of the parcel together with the value of any other lands in the possession of the owner as ascertained by the Land Commission does not exceed £3,000 the Land Commission shall, unless in their opinion it ought to be retained for improvement or enlargement or for utilization in connection with the relief of congestion, re-sell the parcel to the owner at the said price, if before the appointed day he has undertaken to purchase it at that price; and

(b) if the price of the parcel together with the value of any other lands in the possession of the owner as ascertained by the Land Commission exceeds £3,000 the Land Commission may resell to the owner either the whole thereof at the said price or any part thereof at a price bearing the same proportion to the said price which the value of the part bears to the whole of the parcel as ascertained by the Land Commission, but the advance shall not in any case exceed £3,000, unless in the opinion of the Land Commission it is expedient that this amount should be exceeded, the difference (if any) between the amount to be advanced and the price being paid in cash by the owner to the Land Commission.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg leave to withdraw amendment 35b. "To delete the words from the word ‘and' in line 30 to the word ‘husbandry' in line 32, and to substitute therefor the words ‘the same as an ordinary farm.'" The principle has already been debated and divided on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GUINNESS

Is it not in the Standing Orders that a Section when completed should be put to the Seanad?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Orders are suspended.

Mr. GUINNESS

It will only take half a minute.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Very well, you will see.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg to move in section 32 "to omit all the words from the word ‘together' in line 33 to the word ‘owner' in line 34." This amendment purposes to get equity in a matter that was discussed yesterday. Under the Bill the Land Commission, in deciding how much land they shall re-sell, shall take into account all other land in the possession of the owner. I gathered from the Minister yesterday that in the case of purchased land he considered himself bound by some judicial ruling.

Mr. HOGAN

By the previous law.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I am satisfied that no Parliament is bound by previous laws. It can always repeal them.

Mr. HOGAN

Until it is changed.

Sir JOHN KEANE

In this case in deciding how much shall be re-sold the value of any other land in possession of the owner is taken into account. So in fact that gives the Land Commission power to get possession of all land over £3,000 value in the possession of any owner. It is for the House to say whether they approve of such an arbitrary and far-reaching measure of this kind. The Land Commission may re-sell over the £3,000. I can quite understand that in certain quarters this act is welcome. I should enjoy it myself if I were in that position. I want the Seanad to understand that with reference to this Section they are giving the Land Commission power to keep land for all time, to deprive the owner of his legal title of all land over £3,000. The method of fixing the price is not set out. I do not think the methods for fixing the price in Section 25 cover this. The principle however remains the same and as long as the Seanad clearly understand what they are doing I have discharged my responsibility. I do strongly disapprove of giving any Government for all time powers of that kind and therefore I move this amendment.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I do not rise for the purpose of discussing this matter, but to support it. I suppose the reply will be to refer us to the Act of 1920. Here is a concrete case. A man may have his house and his whole farm on which he has laid out a considerable amount of money and according to the definition of unpurchased land in this Act the farm may be held for a term of years or may be fee simple. That man may have other farms. He may have farms purchased under the 1903 or other Acts. When he has those lands, that farm according to the terms of this Section, automatically vests in the Land Commission and it is up to the Land Commission to see now or at any future time whether they will allow him to retain his home or not. In the worst days of landlordism such a thing would not occur if he paid his rent. I believe that the Minister never contemplated such a thing. If he does not want it to occur then why will he invest the Land Commission with such powers?

I will not debate that any further. I think the Minister ought to give ear to what is said here and to remember that this Seanad was approved of unanimously by the country. We are experienced men who go through the country and know the views of the industrial, commercial, and other classes of the people. I ask the Minister to be guided in some manner by practically the unanimous advice given on this matter by the Seanad.

Mr. BENNETT

I am afraid under this amendment if a man had seven or eight farms of £3,000 each he would be able to buy them all. If he had only one parcel it would be reasonable to allow him to buy it, but if the amendment of Sir John Keane is carried and if he had ten parcels he would be enabled to buy them all at a cost of £30,000.

Mr. HOGAN

The idea that Senator Counihan has suddenly wakened up and discovered—he is somewhat of a landlord —would be touching if it were not amusing. This does not refer to tenanted land. I wish for fear there may be any misconception from Senator Counihan's speech to make that clear.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I said it could be untenanted land by virtue of being held on a lease of lives or for a term of years or if it was fee simple land.

Mr. HOGAN

There must be no misconception. The section does not refer to tenanted land, but to untenanted land. I will deal first with the tenures to which the Senator referred. This is the first Act that deals with fee farm rents, long leases and leases renewable for ever. When the Bolshevik Conservative English Government were dealing with the matter they regarded long leases and leases for lives renewable for ever as they regarded untenanted land which they could take for the relief of congestion, but in this Bill, for the first time, we give an opportunity to people who own leases for ever to redeem their rents.

I was pressed in the Dáil by the Farmers' Party, who seemed to be able to change their alliances with extraordinary rapidity—I was pressed to regard them as tenants. In the case where a man owns his land on a lease for 999 years at a small rent, I was pressed to regard him as a tenant and to buy him out at a reduction of thirty-five per cent.—the amendment moved by the Farmers' Party was a reduction of fifty per cent., but I was pressed to do it at thirty-five per cent., capitalised at four-and-half per cent., and to pay ten per cent. of his purchase money.

I think that would be most unfair to the unfortunate holder of the head rent. The farm held on fee farm and long lease especially, used to be regarded by the Conservative Government of England as land that they used to take for the relief of congestion. I am decried for being more liberal because Sections 37 and 38 make provision for the redemption of the fee farm rents and the redemption of rents held on a long lease or on a lease of lives renewable for ever, so that, if we were to regard Senator Counihan as an ordinary tenant, we would give him a chance of redeeming his rent at bonds at four-and-a-half percent., which would bring in his present income.

Mr. GUINNESS

At twenty-two and a half years' purchase.

Mr. HOGAN

The idea is that the Judicial Commissioner shall have power to redeem the rents and regard such a man as tenant. The Judicial Commissioner takes into account his security, and if the security is good the owner would be entitled to as much bonds as would bring in his original rent. Senator Counihan will have the opportunity of paying his rent in one lump sum— the Senator is delighted to hear that, —but if there are thirty congests in his area and not a perch of other land to deal with them we will unfortunately have to take some land from him; but he will be given the opportunity to redeem his head rents on the favourable terms I have mentioned.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I do not want to interrupt, but I want to know with that explanation where does the £3,000 man come in?

Mr. HOGAN

Let me finish. Let me deal now with untenanted land held in fee simple outside the special tenures referred to by the Senator. This Section, in fact, does not deal with demesne or with the things excluded under Sub-Section (2) or Section 24, because demesnes are only bought as a last resort. They do not vest automatically, neither does purchased land, and I put in a safeguard that they shall not be bought if there is any untenanted land available. The land we are dealing with never vests automatically except in the Congested Districts counties, and this is a similar provision to that of the 1920 Bill. Outside the Congested Districts counties—and Senator Counihan lives outside them; if he was living inside them he would know more about the problem I am trying to solve—we only require ordinary untenanted land, not being the exception mentioned, for the relief of congestion.

There is no automatic vesting, or anything like that. There might be a case in Cavan or Monaghan, which are outside the Congested Districts counties, where we would have to treat a parcel of untenanted land on which a man lives and which is held in fee simple, but which he works as an ordinary farmer, in exactly the same way as if it was demesne land, and you know what we are doing about demesnes. Now, there is no real distinction in fact why a man who owns four hundred acres of land in fee simple and works it as an ordinary farmer should be treated differently from a man who owns a demesne which is worked as an ordinary farm; as most small demesnes are so worked. And the trouble was this; we could automatically exclude residential holdings which are not demesnes, but have every characteristic of demesnes, held in fee simple and all the rest. We could exclude them outside the congested counties, but for the fact that there is Cavan and Monaghan, and some congests. We might have to treat a residential holding held in fee simple in these counties and worked as an ordinary farm as we treat a demesne. So, what did we do?

We endeavoured to put the farmer— a farmer who is particularly well off, a farmer who owns his farm in fee simple—into the same position as the farmer who owned his land under a judicial tenancy. We say we will sell him his three thousand pounds' worth unless needed for the relief of congestion. These provisions are already in previous Bills which were agreed to. We had to meet this case. I will put a specific case and leave it to the Seanad to say whether we are taking extraordinary powers under this Section. Take the case of a man outside the congested districts counties who owned a demesne, or residential holding, in fee simple, of five hundred acres in Monaghan or Cavan. There are three or four congests in the counties of Cavan or Monaghan and there are other spots in Ireland where congestion exists. Supposing five or six congests adjoined this residential fee simple holding and there was no other land available to deal with, thirty acres might put the congests right. We had to take power, if we were serious at all about dealing with congestion, to purchase that thirty or forty acres as exactly what it is—untenanted land—and to deal with the congests there.

The alternative there would be not to deal with the congests but to leave them there for ever on two or three pounds valuation of cut-away bog, or else to migrate them. We will do our very best to migrate all the small holders we can migrate, but there are cases of that sort where the hardship would be small to a man to give up a certain amount of land for the relief of congestion. Considering that the difficulty of migrating the congests would be so great—we would have to take down the Dublin Guards to carry out the evictions on a big scale—we did give ourselves these powers. That aspect of the question was discussed, and discussed again and again, and they all agreed that we had to have these powers. Now that is the position.

Mr. KENNY

Senator Counihan in the course of his speech expressed anxiety as to the operation of this Section. He seemed to think that a man owning a certain amount of land should be excluded from sale altogether. If some priority were given under the Section securing the home farm the Senator's concern about the Section would not be so great. I take it that is a very natural anxiety for a man who has bought his holding and who has expended a great deal of time and labour in building up his home. Might I suggest to the Minister that there might be something inserted in the Section which would not make it mandatory for a sale to be carried out in such a case. I would suggest an amendment on the following lines:—To insert in line 45, "In addition to his residential or home farm and such home farm not exceeding £3,000 in value."

I suggest that the amendment, if agreed to, would give priority to the owner in the case of a re-sale. It would not necessarily compel the Land Commission to retain the man's home farm to him, but in the exercise of their option they might give consideration to the fact that in addition to this home farm they might sell to him the other portion of his holdings.

Mr. HOGAN

This sort of a farm is in the same position as a demesne, except that this is simply a legal distinction. This Section is to meet the case of a man who holds four or five hundred acres of land in fee simple around his house which is not demesne land. I discussed before the question of demesne land, and pointed out why we must take powers, as far as demesne land is concerned, to deal with the relief of congestion. We have power to take demesne land, and sometimes the very same reasons apply to the man who owns four or five hundred acres of untenanted land in fee-simple, except that legally the land is not demesne, but it has every other characteristic of demesne land.

That is really the position. The same arguments apply here as apply in the case of demesne land. We could not draw the line by valuation or by value. Congestion is such a desperate problem to deal with that you can only deal with it by swopping around, and you must give the Land Commission powers and very wide powers if you mean to deal with it. It was because we had to give the Land Commission these wide discretionary powers that I put the provision in the Section that, before the Land Commission made any division of the land, a High Court Judge should have the last word to say in all these cases. The Judge is to be the arbitrator between the Commissioners and the Vendor. The Section provides that there shall always be power for an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final. Some Senators seem to be under the impression that the Judicial Commissioner is bound up with the Land Commission. That is not so. What we did was, and this is a mere drafting point, to provide that the Land Commission shall consist of the Judicial Commissioner and the Land Commissioners.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Has that anything to do with my amendment?

Mr. HOGAN

It has to do with it to this extent, that I made the point that we must give fairly wide discretionary powers to the Land Commission, and cannot draw the line at the £3,000 limit, or anything like that. I assured the Seanad that the Judicial Commissioner in this matter is an arbitrator pure and simple. He is a Judge of the King's Bench, and he must approach all these questions in a judicial fashion, and he must be bound strictly by the spirit of the Act. We could not deal with congestion in any other way than by giving to the Land Commission these wide powers and making certain that the Land Commission will do their work impartially and that the Judicial Commissioner shall be an independent High Court Judge who will act as arbitrator between the Land Commission and the parties concerned.

Mr. COUNIHAN

May I say a few words by way of personal explanation. I am afraid that the Minister for Agriculture and some Senators who replied to my remarks may think I am acting here in an entirely personal and selfish manner. That is not so. I want to point out that I am typical of a number of farmers in the country, and even if I put forward as an illustration my own case, it represents the case of a very large number of farmers in the country.

Mr. JAMESON

The Minister told us that practically this section would only apply to land in the congested districts counties, but that there were a few cases outside of these districts that would have to be dealt with, and that that made it necessary to apply this section to the whole of the land in the Free State. I wonder did the Minister, and those who advised him, take into account the point that I dealt with before in this matter. The giving of these powers to the Land Commission will undoubtedly adversely affect the land which every individual holds in that way throughout the whole of the Free State. We are told that it will not affect more than a few of these landholders, but that is probably I take it the individual owner. It will affect bankers throughout the country who lend money to individual owners relying on the value of the property which they hold.

The situation under this Section will create an entirely new state of affairs for the banks when they are asked to advance money to anyone holding lands. They can be told in the future that the Land Commission may come in and say that they want the land. Therefore they are putting the banks in Ireland into the very same position that they are putting the owners or the occupiers of the land. The owners of the land come to the bank and say that they have got something to sell, or an individual may come to the bank and say that he wants to buy land. No matter whether the land is required or not, every single application from an owner of land for a loan from the bank will have to be viewed in the light that the Land Commission, under this Section, will have power to take over that man's land. Anyone who advances money or anything else will have to take that principle as bedrock. That point, I think, will be quite clear to everyone, and I think it may be taken for granted that the same principle will apply to every other bit of land in all the other counties.

One cannot say, in a hurry, what the ultimate effect of that will be, but I think it is easy to see that it will have a very far-reaching effect upon the borrowing powers of the owners and occupiers of land in the Free State. The Minister, I believe, is trying to meet certain cases but I think it would be desirable if some other way could be found and not to apply this principle in such an extremely broad manner. I admit that the Minister's object is a great one: to relieve congestion but, on the other hand, it is quite clear that no matter what he does, if he applies this principle to every bit of land in the Free State, he is not going to be the friend of those who traded on the valuation system as far as obtaining loans on the value of land is concerned. What we have to look to in the future is what price land is likely to fetch. The Land Commission is to be given power to say that they want the land, and that they propose to take it. I think such a provision as this will have an adverse effect on the value of land in the Free State.

Mr. GUINNESS

As a practical banker I wish to confirm what Senator Jameson has said. The whole Bill throws suspicion on the security of the land of Ireland. Probably the greater portion of the land of Ireland is mortgaged in some form or other, and there is no doubt that when insecurity of any description comes in it means that the value of the article pledged falls. It may be said, and probably the Minister will say it, that it was impossible to have matters otherwise but it is well, I think, that the Seanad should realize what this whole Bill must mean so far as security is concerned. It means that something the owner can pledge has, through the action of this Bill, undoubtedly, fallen in value.

Mr. HOGAN

That is a point I must deal with, but before doing so I would like to give these figures. The area of the land of Ireland is 20,000,000 acres. The area of the land excluding towns, water, waste, etc., would be a maximum of 18,000,000 acres—17,000,000 acres would be nearer, and that is for the whole of Ireland. The area of the purchased land of Ireland is 13,000,000 acres so we are dealing in this Bill with 4,000,000 acres. We are dealing with 4,000,000, and we are taking power over 13,000,000, and that is a serious point. Let me deal with the 4,000,000, because that is the point Senator Jameson dealt with. Now, with regard to the untenanted land in the congested districts, as Senator Jameson pointed out, the Congested Districts Board could have taken land compulsorily ever since 1909, and exactly the same consideration from a banking point of view applied to untenanted land in the congested districts counties.

The very same considerations apply as a result of the operations of the 1909 Act, as far as the untenanted land is concerned. There were nine hundred thousand acres of untenanted land; there are about four hundred thousand acres of demesne, and there would be something over two million acres of tenanted land in Ireland. These figures are important. Remember I am dealing now with the difference between the thirteen millions of purchased land and the land we may acquire under this Bill. Of that four millions nine hundred thousand acres is arable untenanted land and four hundred thousand demesne, and about two million acres of tenanted land unpurchased. With regard to the nine hundred thousand acres of arable, untenanted, land, the very same considerations apply from a banking point of view since 1909 in the congested district counties and in reality outside the congested district counties, because, as everyone knew, untenanted land of that particular class was not being bought at its market value and was not saleable at its market value.

How many landlords in Ireland, even outside the congested district counties, for the last five or six or twenty years, could have divided their land into small holdings, put them up for auction in the open market and sold them untenanted. As far as the untenanted land is concerned, the parallel within the congested districts counties is absolutely accurate and outside the congested districts counties, for all practical purposes, it is the same. No untenanted land of that class was saleable at its market value; at least half of it, as a fact, was not saleable at its market value, and a part of that land was not saleable at anything like its market value. Surely as a banking matter the whole of it was tainted, from Senator Jameson's point of view. We are not interfering with the value of that land as a security, as far as that nine hundred thousand acres are concerned, anything more than it was interfered with as a result of the operations of the previous Acts. Take demesne land, of which there are four hundred thousand acres. It was never saleable. It was never very valuable as a security, in view of the fact that it was not saleable.

Mr. JAMESON

I think you ought to be a little cautions in making that statement. We have seen a good many demesnes sold in the last few years, purchased by associations along your own lines, and re-sold. We know a good many of them.

Mr. HOGAN

Senator Jameson knows far more about that matter than I do. He knows more about the value of that land as a security.

Mr. JAMESON

May I ask Mr. Guinness to confirm the statement?

Mr. GUINNESS

I can confirm that.

Mr. HOGAN

Was demesne land worth its market value to a bank?

Mr. JAMESON

No. Demesne land had a big "if" in it, but we knew its value because we saw certain transactions going through at certain figures and we were able with all the disabilities of demesne land, to know what it was fairly safe for us to advance on it.

Mr. GUINNESS

The Minister used one expression which I think covers the whole thing. That is that by this Bill the land of Ireland as a banking security is tainted.

Mr. HOGAN

Pardon me, you misunderstand me. There was some dispute as to what amendment I did promise on Report. I was quoting Senator Jameson's point of view or the case he put up. I do not accept that, and I hope to show he does not.

Mr. GUINNESS

As a security I say the land is tainted by the introduction of this Bill. I quite admit that it is probably inevitable, but it is a fact that this Bill, as it stands, which involves the transfer of land here, there, and everywhere all over Ireland does taint the land as a banking security.

Mr. HOGAN

Do not take me as admitting that at the moment. What I want to explain to Senator Jameson is that I did say yesterday, when I was discussing a point which Senator Jameson had previously put, that his case was that as a result of the operations of the Bill land would be tainted. I did not adopt that. I have thought a good deal about it, and I hope to show you it is not so. You will admit that nine hundred thousand acres of land is not tainted to any extent more than it was.

Mr. JAMESON

More than it was.

Mr. HOGAN

As regards the demesne land, as Senator Jameson said, there is a big "if" in it. I agree that during the war when people were making tons of money out of land, and when there was quite a lot of speculation going on in connection with land, and when there was not much land trouble, demesnes were selling pretty well, and people parted with land which they could not have parted with between 1903 and 1914. I do not expect for one moment, or profess for one moment, that I will ever be able to bring back land to be such a good security as it was between 1916 and 1918. You could not expect me. Apropos of that I may say security on Irish land was always tainted because cattle drives and agrarian outrages did not improve the security of Irish land.

It is really in the long run to improve the security on Irish land that I am bringing in this Bill. You must deal with the merits of the case, and when you deal with the merits of the case on the one side and when the Government does its duty on the other, you will have the security of Irish land what it should be. I think even bankers will admit that we are not tainting very much, the average security on the demesnes— the average since 1903, in face of all the safeguards we have hedged them around with. Now, come to the tenanted land. We give the Land Commission power to resume any holding at resumption price. The landlord had that power already for all practical purposes. I would ask Senator Jameson and Senator Guinness whether, in fact, that provision will taint tenanted land one iota.

Mr. JAMESON

That is the price quoted in sub-section (3) of clause 29.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, we have it there in black and white. So that as far as tenanted land is concerned, and the security of tenanted land, as compared with the security of the same class of land in England, it has been tainted to some extent for the last hundred years, especially the land of tenant-farmers. I put it that we are not interfering or tainting the security from a banking point of view, one iota, by giving resumption prices, especially in view of the fact that that land was not saleable already, and that the only thing that will make that land saleable is the completion of the operations under this Act.

Mr. GUINNESS

It is not so much the price. It is the insecurity involved; the insecurity that makes any land in a good part of Ireland liable to be—I will not say confiscated, but—by the action of the Government, changed from one ownership to another. That unquestionably spreads insecurity over the land, and therefore, makes the land not so valuable as it was before.

Mr. HOGAN

Did not that always apply to tenanted land?

Mr. GUINNESS

It applies to everything that is insecure.

Mr. HOGAN

I am dealing now with two million acres of land. I am trying to meet a genuine point put by Senator Jameson and Senator Guinness. I am not making debating points. I am dealing with the tenanted land unpurchased. I am pointing out that we are giving resumption price, resumption price being the price of the average open market. In the past, tenanted land could have been and was dealt with. As a result of the operation of the 1903 and and 1909 Acts, thirteen million acres of land were dealt with.

Mr. JAMESON

I quite understand what the Minister is saying. Where does that come into the Act?

Mr. HOGAN

What?

Mr. JAMESON

The price that you are to pay for tenanted land is to be the resumption price.

Mr. HOGAN

Sub-section (3) of Section 29.

Mr. JAMESON

That applies to the whole of the tenanted land?

Mr. HOGAN

Of course, when we are resuming tenanted land. I think bankers will admit, in all the circumstances, that we do not taint the security of tenanted land, or if we do, we are ensuring to a tenant whose cattle have been driven for the last ten, twelve or fifteen years, that he will get the resumption price of the land from the State; that is the price that is adjudged to be the value in the open market. I can say no more now on that question of tenanted land. Let us come to the really serious point, the thirteen million acres of land unpurchased. Let me read the amendments I accepted.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Is this germane?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is not exactly germane to the amendment, but it is undoubtedly germane to the questions put and observations made by Senator Jameson and Senator Guinness. What I mean by that is that they were emphasising that this general legislation makes it possible for the Government to interfere with the ownership of any land in any part of the Free State. Their point was that this operation created a sense of insecurity, and as a consequence lowered the value of the asset.

Mr. GUINNESS

Exactly, Sir.

Mr. HOGAN

The amendment I accepted is as follows:

Where the Land Commission declare that any land coming within Clause 1 of sub-section 2 of this section is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, the following provision shall have effect: (a) if the land so declared forms portion of a holding, the proprietor or tenant of the holding may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, require that the entire holding be so declared, and the Land Commission shall in that event, either so declare the entire holding or withdraw from the proposed acquisition of the said holding.

That is to say where the Land Commission propose to acquire compulsorily a purchased holding, then the holder or the owner of the purchased holding shall say "you will take it all or none." That is to prevent their taking 120 acres from a man with 150 acres, and leaving him the balance. The Section goes on:

(b) If within the prescribed time and and in the prescribed manner, the proprietor or tenant of the declared land so requires them to do, the Land Commission shall, as soon as practicable, provide the said proprietor or tenant with a new holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose opinion shall be final) shall be equally suitable for the said proprietor or tenant and of not less value than the declared land. The provisions contained in this Act for transferring burdens and rights on the exchange of holdings by agreement shall extend to any exchange of lands effected under this Sub-section.

What is the meaning of that Sub-section? It means that when we take a purchased holding we must give the owner a holding equally suitable and of not less value. In most cases, of course, this does not affect the banking question, because we give him a better holding. He will be taken out of a congested area and put somewhere where there is no congestion. If he wants to keep the holding he can keep it in law and in fact because he would not be under the same pressure as he had been, living amongst congests for the last twenty or thirty years. He can keep it, and it is as valuable; the burdens of the land are transferred and his personal security is better than it was before, if anything. If he wants to sell it he can do so, a thing he never could have done with his old holding in 95 cases out of 100. He can sell it in the open market and it will be in a place where there is no congestion. That man is worth to the banker considerably more than he was worth before. He has a holding of the same value in a place where he can sell it if he wants to sell it, with all the burdens transferred. In 99 cases out of 100, he would not want to sell it, but if he does he is in the happy position that he can sell it.

In view of these safeguards, in view of the fact that we will be only taking a very small percentage of purchased holdings, and that if we do take a holding, we must give that man an equally suitable holding, and one of not less value, the position will be re-established from the banking point of view. I can only conceive one class of case where the banker might be affected prejudicially. That is the class of case where the value of the holding was, say, £4,000. The holder's debts were £4,000. The value which the Land Commission would pay him if he refused to take an equivalent holding and insisted on being paid would be £3,000. Possibly if he owed £4,000, and if the market value of the equivalent holding was £4,000, he might, under most extraordinary circumstances, say to the Land Commission, "Give me the £3,000; I will put it in my pocket and you can keep the holding." Then the people to whom he owed £4,000 would have to sue him for the £3,000 which he had in hard cash. But remember he would have sacrificed a new holding which he could get the market value for. So that, in fact, in regard to purchased holdings we are giving the market value. If bankers think there is any virtue in the objection, we could insert a provision which would cover that two per cent. of cases to which I have referred and make it mandatory both on the Land Commission and the holder to take an equivalent holding and to have the burdens transferred. That would only affect one per cent. or two per cent. of cases. If we make a provision in the Bill to give the man an equivalent holding and leave it to him to sell it if he wants the money, it would absolutely cover the point. But is there a point to be covered?

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

Would he have to prove title?

Mr. HOGAN

Of course he would have to prove title. If there were any mortgages on his old holding we would transfer them to the mortgagees.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

If you transfer the mortgages it is all right.

Mr. HOGAN

The case we were putting was the case where the value of the land would not cover all his mortgages. I have thought over the question very carefully and I do not think, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there is even from the banking point of view any point to be covered. We had two policies to deal with in connection with this land question. Last year we took up the attitude that no man was going to have a perch of land unless he was the legal owner of it. Six months ago the land of the country was rapidly developing into a commonage. The other side of our policy is this Land Purchase Bill. We ask you to put through this Land Purchase Bill. Consider carefully the very slight shake it will give the security of the country —if it does give it any shake—from the banking point of view, and on the other side consider the tremendous advantages of having the merits of the land question dealt with in Ireland once and for all, and put out of the way, and give the Government a fair chance to bring the question to the same position that it is in England, France, Germany, or any other country.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I said I would not intervene by way of suggestion but I do think that it might be of some use and would greatly relieve the anxiety of some members of the Seanad, if the construction that the Minister puts on Clause 29, Sub-section (3) was made plain in the Section—that is to say, that it should be made plain that on the resumption of a holding the Judicial Commissioner is to award a sum that would equal the average market price. I have no hesitation in saying that that is not in the Section at present.

Mr. BENNETT

I was told last night it was.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have no hesitation in saying that it is not in the Section. I am sure the Minister was perfectly bona fide in putting forward his interpretation of it, but what it says is that the Courts have the same powers as are conferred in Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act. Section 5 is only introduced for the purpose of giving the Court the same powers and there is nothing about the price or the mode of ascertaining the price in it. That could be made quite plain by a simple amendment. At present there is nothing in that Section or Sub-section which is any guarantee that the Judge must have regard to the average market value of the land.

Mr. HOGAN

That is a very important point.

Mr. BENNETT

I would ask the Minister to have that amendment framed.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Chairman say, in face of that Section, that the Land Commission must or must not give what they call the "resumption price?"

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

In my opinion "no." The fixing of the price, in my opinion is left to the Land Commission, without any directions, and if that is not the intention of the Government, I think it would greatly relieve anxiety amongst the Senators if the matter were made plain. If the Government intend that they should have the resumption price it would be very easy to make it plain in the Section. It is not there, in my opinion, at present. I thought it only fair to say that because it might shorten the proceedings in connection with a good many of these amendments.

Mr. HOGAN

This Section was drafted for the purpose of making it clear that it was the resumption price the owner was to get. It was exactly the same intention was in the minds of the drafters of the 1920 Bill. I will immediately consult my advisers on the question.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It would be quite simple to put in a Sub-section saying that in fixing compensation payable to the tenant under the Sub-section the Judicial Commissioner shall apply the principle under which that Section was administered.

Mr. HOGAN

I will consult my legal advisers immediately on that question.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You stated several times—and nobody questions your sincerity in making the statement —that that was the intention of the Government. It would relieve anxiety if that were made plain in the Bill.

Mr. BENNETT

I will put in an amendment on the Report Stage if it is not brought in.

Mr. HOGAN

It comes to me as a great surprise that that is not the interpretation of that Section.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It merely confers on the Judge the powers a Judge has under another Act. It does not say he is to exercise those powers in a particular direction or having regard to a particular standard.

Mr. HOGAN

"The Land Commission shall have and may exercise all or any of the powers exercisable by them as respects holdings on estates vested in them, including powers of resumption of the whole or part of the holding."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That only gives them power to resume holdings. It says nothing as to the principle of resumption or the method of compensation.

Mr. HOGAN

It gives them power to resume holdings and in that respect it puts them in the same position as the landlord except that they can resume holdings for more reasons than the landlord. But, leaving out the reasons, they have the power of resumption. The landlord had power to resume under Section 5—the very Section quoted from—and the Courts have decided that on resumption the price shall be resumption price. That may be all wrong, but I will consult my legal advisers on it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think it is at all clear. If I had to interpret it, I would find that it was not provided in the Section.

Mr. JAMESON

I think none of us is qualified to deal with that part of the matter, and if the Minister will satisfy the Chairman we will be all content.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It might be putting a very difficult task on the Minister. I am sure everybody must recognise the ability and fairness that the Minister has displayed in connection with this Bill and the extraordinary efforts he is making to meet the views of all parties. I am quite certain that once it is declared to be the policy of the Government that compensation should be assessed on this principle there will be no difficulty in making that clear in the Section.

The EARL of MAYO

I admit everything the Minister said and I admit the statement made by the Chairman and the statements made by the Minister dealing with this question. I also admit that the sub-section that the Minister read out is a very good sub-section, an excellent one. But then he qualified that by saying that this is not a banking point, and there I take issue with him. The real truth of the matter is, as I am informed, that the banks have decided not to lend any more money to owners of land in Ireland until they are quite certain about the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. GUINNESS

I have heard nothing about it, Sir.

The EARL of MAYO

I am very glad to hear that you have heard nothing about it, but I have heard it for a fact and I quite believe it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is only fair to Senators Jameson and Guinness, as far as I heard them, and I listened to them patiently, to say that I did not hear them making that sweeping statement.

The EARL of MAYO

No; but I make it, and I must say this at once to put it perfectly clearly and in very definite language, without any personal meaning whatsoever, that the Minister for Agriculture cannot jump the counter. I want that very clear. I go to the bank and I say I want to borrow money on my land. I say, "Here is the land: what will you lend me on it?" and the reply is, "Very sorry, sir, but we are closed down on that matter." Personally I do not care a brass farthing. I am only putting it from the point of view of the man in the street, any man who wants to borrow money on land. Let it be quite understood by the Seanad what I am talking about. These are really the facts of the case.

Mr. KENNY

Question. On a point of order a statement like that is likely to shake the credit of the whole country. The Senator makes this pronouncement authoritatively, and I think it ought to be repudiated straight away by those who are in a position to repudiate it.

The EARL of MAYO

May I go on?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No; we will go back to the amendment.

Mr. KENNY

We should have a repudiation first.

Mr. GUINNESS

I am quite prepared to say, Sir, that the remarks of the noble Senator do not accord with our experience as bankers in Ireland.

The EARL of MAYO

Well, will you lend money on land?

Mr. GUINNESS

I would answer that question, Sir, by referring to the general debate in just one or two words. I do not know anybody who has come forward and made the security as good as the Minister has. I congratulate him as an individual who might come to me, as a banker, and ask for an advance and make the most he can of his security, and I think on the whole, the case that he has made out for the land of Ireland is a good case. On the whole, I think it is only right to say he has satisfied me. He admits, I think, that there will be a certain amount, possibly, of falling value through insecurity but, at any rate he has satisfied me that the land of Ireland will not be such a depreciated security in the future as possibly might have been expected by some through the passing of this Act.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. I can state that the Bank of Ireland has lent me money on land.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That was on the strength of your tobacco. I hope it will not end in smoke.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I hope it will.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Now we will get back to the amendment.

Sir JOHN KEANE

My only object in this amendment is to have the Seanad understand clearly what it is doing. On this general question of banking and security I wish to make a statement on the final stages of the Bill. In the Bill as before us the position is this: At present this Bill is not law. The man who owns £3,000 worth of land in the congested districts is liable, of course, to have that land compulsorily acquired for the relief of congestion only. If that same man also has £3,000 worth of land outside the congested districts—I am referring to untenanted land—under the Bill, by virtue of the fact that he owns £3,000 worth of land outside the congested districts that land can be taken by the Land Commission and used, not only for the relief of congestion, but for distribution among the persons mentioned in Section 31. I only want the Seanad to know what is being done. I am quite indifferent as to how the issue goes, but there is a grave responsibility on this House to do these things with their eyes open, practically to take away from a man all the land he owns, in certain circumstances, in excess of £3,000 value. This is the first time that this occurs in this Bill. It occurs now. I am not going to speak again on it, but I have to ask the House to divide upon it.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 27.

Tá

• Bennett, Thomas Westropp.
• Butler, Richard A.
• Counihan, John C.
• Gogarty, Oliver St. John, M.D.
• Keane, Sir John, Bart.
• Linehan, Thomas.

Níl

• Douglas, James Green.
• Cummins, William.
• de Loughry, Peter.
• Desart, Ellen Odette, Dowager Countess of.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Everard, Sir Nugent Talbot, Bart.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Granard, Right Hon. Earl of, K.P., G.C.V.O.
• Green, Mrs. Alice Stopford.
• Guinness, Henry Seymour.
• Irwin, Cornelius Joseph.
• Jackson, Arthur.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew, D.L.
• Kenny, Patrick William.
• Love, Joseph Clayton.
• MacKean, James.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• MacLysaght, Edward.
• MacPartlin, Thomas.
• Mahon, General the Right Hon. Sir Bryan, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., D.S.O.
• Mayo, Eard of, K.P. Moran James.
• O'Dea, Michael.
• O'Farrell, John Thomas.
• O'Sullivan, William, M.D.
• Wicklow, Earl of, D.L.

Amendment declared lost.