I gave notice that on the adjournment I would call attention to the procedure of the Land Commission in fixing the "Appointed Day" in connection with estates that they proposed to acquire compulsorily. I did so with reluctance, because I do not want to weary the Dáil, but I did so because of the urgency of the matter. In one particular case, brought to my notice, a constituent of my own is the owner of certain lands in the County of Meath at Rathregan. He is both a stockbreeder and a salesmaster, and he uses this land, which is within walking distance of Dublin cattle markets, for the purposes of his business. The Land Commission, some nine or ten months ago, served notice on him that they intended to acquire that land compulsorily. He took steps, and I believe he took them with legal advice, to object to that procedure. His objection was taken before the Land Commission, and met with a simple negative. No reason was given—simply a negative. He then appealed to Mr. Justice Wylie on the question of value, and succeeded in getting the amount somewhat increased. He then put up two propositions to the Commissioners. He offered them other land rather more remote from Dublin, but I believe equal in regard to tillage, and more conveniently situated as regards access by road, and approximately of equal area. After that offer was refused, he asked that he might be allowed to surrender two-thirds of the 500 acres in this particular place and to retain one-third for the purposes of his business.
I am not speaking of my own knowledge in regard to this land, but, I believe, Deputy Leonard, a much greater authority on the value of land and cattle, will bear me out when I say that these were reasonable offers. They were simply dismissed. No argument was advanced. My constituent was simply told: "We are going to take the land: we accept none of your alternative offers." He tried, the, to reason with the Minister. The real trouble in this particular case is that my constituent came to me too late; he went to Deputy Leonard first. If he had come to me I would have told him the Minister was not amenable to argument, and that the last thing to do was to write the Minister a four-page letter arguing with him on a question of justice. He did write to the Minister, and he has not had any reply, at least not up to 12 o'clock to-day. All he got, after these offers and these attempts to meet the Minister and to meet the policy of the Land Act in trying to provide land for the relief of congestion, was that on Monday, of this week, his solicitor received a notice that the "Appointed Day" was Friday, that is to-morrow.
I do suggest to the Minister and to the Dáil that a longer notice than that ought to have been given. From the farming point of view and from every point of view there should be more than a week's notice. It should be possible to give at least a month's notice. In this case my constituent has stock upon the land. He has pedigree brood-mares that have been to expensive sires and that are about to foal. He has ewes that are about to lamb. Even if you could find other accommodation for these beasts it is not a very easy or safe matter to move them without four or five days' notice. The Minister may say his Department has been reproached with administering the Land Act too slowly. That may be so. He may say that the policy of his Department, on the whole, is too conservative, and it is criticised for that. That may be so, but it really amounts to saying that, as it was too conservative in the past it is now going in another direction—in other words, that the dog may be allowed his first bite. That may be agreeable for the dog.