Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 15

CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ ORAL ANSWERS. ] - SEIZURE OF CATTLE BY MILITARY. (FORCIBLE POSSESSION OF MAYO FARM.)

asked the Minister for Home Affairs on whose authority cattle were removed from a farm at Ballyveel, Co. Mayo, by armed Military; whether he has received a communication from Messrs. Leetch, Solicitors, Ballyhaunis, stating that the owners of the cattle were not guilty of any illegal actions; and further, to ask whether, in view of the fact that Civil Courts are functioning in the area, an ordinary action for trespass could not have been taken.

I have received the communication mentioned by the Deputy from Messrs. Leetch, Solicitors, Ballyhaunis, and I find on inquiry that fourteen head of cattle were removed by military from the lands of Mr. Martin Curran on the 4th instant. My information on this matter is that for the past twelve months forcible possession of these lands had been taken by people in the district. Mr. Curran's cattle were driven off, his walls were knocked down, and the lands trespassed on with impunity. It is true that Civil Courts are functioning in the District, but I regret that forcible seizure and illegal occupation of lands have been carried on to such an extent in Mayo, as in many other counties, that I have been compelled to inform the Military Authorities that it constitutes a problem incapable of being adequately dealt with by an unarmed police force, or by legal processes. The alleged innocent trespassers in this case should have taken warning by the treatment meted out to the alleged innocent trespassers on the farm of Mr. T. Lewin and others in neighbouring counties. The Deputy will remember this matter was very fully discussed some time ago. If he wishes, I can show him reports and statistics which should satisfy him that the gravity and proportions of this evil are such as to place it outside the scope of Civil Bill Procedure.

Is the Minister aware that there was another farm of Mr. Curran's, and that there was no dispute as to this particular farm from which those cattle were seized? Can he say whether any preliminary enquiries were made by those who carried out this raid?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Adequate preliminary inquiries were made. The farm has been trespassed on for over twelve months. The suggestion in Messrs. Leetch's letter, and in the Deputy's question, as originally drafted, that it was due to neglect of fencing, is unsound. Mr. Curran would have needed to sit up all night for the past twelve months with some hundreds of agents to adequately guard these particular fences.

Will the Minister say whether, in cases in which people grazing cattle understood that they were legally entitled to graze the cattle, the military seized their cattle and refused to accept payment from these people whose cattle were driven off? Would he say whether, such action could not have been settled by civil proceedings rather than by military proceedings?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not know whether I am expected to answer supplementary questions from any Deputy, except the Deputy who asks the original question.

Any Deputy can put a supplementary question.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Then I would ask the Deputy to repeat the question.

Would the Minister say whether civil proceedings would not be preferable in cases in which people whose cattle had been driven off, and seized and sold by the military— people who honestly believed that they were entitled to the grazing for the last twelve months—proffered the rent for the grazing to the military who refused it?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

If I understand the question aright, it is whether people who believed that they were entitled to have their cattle on particular land, and who found ultimately that that was not the case, offered to pay some compensation, or something equivalent to rent, to the military when in fact their cattle were seized?

No, before they were seized.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It seems to me that you cannot deal with this thing on the basis of allowing illegal occupation for months, and then, when action is taken to rectify the wrong, the people come along with a couple of shillings and say, "Here, sure, I will pay for the grazing." There are definite property rights, and if the property laws are wrong, let them be amended or repealed here; but, if they are to stand, then very strong action must be taken to vindicate them, and to assert the legal rights of citizens. I could show Deputies, and will show to any Deputy who is anxious to see them, reports from all over the country showing that this matter of the illegal occupation of land is of proportions that lift it absolutely out of the scope of an unarmed police force or of Civil Bill procedure. It is a definite part and parcel of the organised campaign against the State. Officers were appointed by the Four Courts Executive whose special function and duty it was to stir up agrarian trouble of this kind, and stir up this spirit of confiscation and wanton illegality. It has to be visualised in that way, and has to be tackled in that way. To fail to utilise the military to cure this evil would mean that the evil was not going to be cured at all.

Would the Minister say, in view of the fact that in the cases I mentioned the people were anxious to clear up the whole thing, that civil action instead of military action would not be preferable?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I will say this, that no action of this kind has been taken without very full inquiry, and very full representations from civil officers, responsible officers, of the State.

Does that hold good in every case, may I ask?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It holds good in every case.

Top
Share