As one who took a prominent part in the land struggle and especially in that aspect of it regarding the sub-division of land, I must say I have no complaint, so far as the constituency I represent is concerned, regarding the work done by the Irish Land Commission. The speed has not been as rapid as the people were led to expect, but anybody who has any knowledge of the question must understand the difficulty the Land Commission has had to contend with, in a lot of these cases, and for that reason I have all along advised the people that the Land Commission could proceed with no greater haste than they are doing. In the two counties I represent they have gone on well.
There are two or three things that I think the Land Commission could have done better. I would like the Minister to tell the Committee what is the intention of the Government with regard to these things. One of these is land bought through the National Land Bank. I put a question the other day as to the amount of land purchased with money advanced through that Bank and the reply I got was that 17,000 acres had been purchased for £300,000 or thereabouts. That land was purchased through co-operative societies and other classes who combined together and got the money from the Bank. They have been working that land since. They paid down some small sum. In one particular area in my constituency 215 statute acres was purchased through the Land Bank, at a cost of £9,336. That is roughly 133 Irish acres. It was published in the Gazette that since 4th March, 1925, this 133 Irish acres or 215 statute acres, is the property of the Irish Land Commission, and that there is to be an annuity paid, by the men who purchased, of £403 annually. That is over £3 an acre these men, have to pay.
I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on this matter. I would like to hear from the Minister whether his Department will re-value that land, and buy it back at a price, or is the State to suffer a loss? There are other cases of lots of land bought through the Joint Stock Banks similar to what was bought through the National Land Bank. I had two men with me to-day that bought the Greville Nugent estate, near Delvin, and gave £22,000 for it. They paid down £11,000, and borrowed £11,000 from one of the Joint Stock Banks. That has to be paid yet. This estate was divided by these men into thirty-two holdings, which were apportioned out, and this £11,000 has to be paid to the bank, and all these men are jointly and severally securities for it. You cannot make fish of one class of men and flesh of another. If you bring in legislation to cut the loss for land purchase made through the National Land Bank, what are you going to do for the Joint Stock Banks? They should be treated similarly, and for this reason I take the opportunity of asking the Minister what the Government intend to do. Any one can see in these particular cases that speed is necessary. Why? Take the case of these men owing £11,000. They pay 6 per cent., which is £660 a year. That is accumulating every week. I have another case of an estate that was bought for £17,000. The Land Commission sent down an inspector, and the price that he would give was £11,400. This estate was bought through a Joint Stock Bank, and the difference between what the Land Commission would give and what these people paid is the difference between £11,000 and £17,000, with interest accumulating.
Now with regard to the class of men that are being put on the land, there is very little dissatisfaction with the class of tenants selected in the Midlands. The inspectors are good and efficient, and they have picked out the proper type of people. And what I like above all is the way that the Government are dividing the land, which is a much better way than when it was divided under the old British system. Under the British system, small holders got small patches, and the holdings were not consolidated. Some years afterwards, these men put up the farms for sale. Now, the Minister's Department is consolidating the holdings of uneconomic holders. Uneconomic holders are having their holdings made economic by having their farms put in with the land they are getting under the Act. If they are going to sell, they will have to sell the entire land, which is different from the system that obtained under the British administration.
As regards the labourers, I must say that the Department has been very fair in my county. Where there was a labourer living on an estate which was divided, as a result of which this man would be deprived of employment, he got a piece of land there. As a result, farmers and labourers and uneconomic holders are reasonably satisfied. But we must realise that there is not sufficient land to go round. The Government were wise in dealing with the problem as they did. The question was as to what should be done with migrants from the West of Ireland. That is a problem which puzzled Mr. Birrell and puzzled the old administration at every turn. This Government set about dealing with it in the proper way. If you started to shift migrants from the West without relieving the congestion existing locally, you would only start civil war. I sympathise with the people of the West. Nobody knows the conditions there better than I do. I know every stone on the road in the province of Connacht and nothing would please me better than that I should be able to help in remedying the conditions that exist there. But as I have said, if you shifted migrants without relieving congestion locally, it would only lead to another civil war.
There is another point on which I would like to get some explanation. A number of men who hold land under free farm grants are dissatisfied and say they were not fairly treated. I know there is a section of the Act by which they can redeem. I would like to know if any further legislation is projected in connection with those men.
