Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1928

Vol. 25 No. 2

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - LAND DIVISION IN MAYO.

Mr. WALSH

To-day I asked the Minister for Fisheries whether he will state the reasons why the applications of Pat Walsh, Breaghwy, County Mayo; Michael Loftus, Ballinooash; Michael Caulfield, Ballinooash; James Howley, Lognavodogue; Edward Mullaney, Lognavodogue; Ellen Callaghan, Cappavicar; Ellen Mongan, Cappavicar; John Quigley, Lognavodogue; Pat Fox, Corheens, and Patrick Clarke, Ballinooash, for parcels of land on the Browne Estate, Breaghwy, Castlebar, have been refused; whether he is aware that these applicants are congested holders who are in urgent need of increases to their farms; and whether he will now state when and how it is proposed to deal with their claims.

The reply was:—"The Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, have divided the lands situate on the estate of D. S. Browne to the best advantage having regard to the particular circumstances of the applicants, and to the area of land available for distribution. It was not found possible to provide the applicants referred to in the question with allotments."

In the course of his remarks the Minister said, or at least, I understood he said, that one of the people I mentioned had a poor law valuation of over £18. I have a list here giving particulars regarding the valuations of each man. Pat Walsh pays a rent of £5 12s. That man could not possibly have a poor law valuation of over £18. Thomas Callaghan has a poor law valuation of £9 5s.; Michael Loftus has a valuation of £8 5s; Michael Caulfield, £5 2s.; James Howley, £5 15s.; Edward Mulaney, £5 15s.; Ellen Callaghan, £7 10s.; Ellen Mongan, £8 15s.; John Quigley, £2 10s.; Pat Fox has a rent of £9. The poor law valuation could hardly be twice his rent. Then there is Patrick Clarke with a poor law valuation of £7 10s.

Regarding the statement as to valuation, the valuation of one man who got land is £15. One of the persons who got land was an ex-sergeant of the R.I.C. and he is supposed to be drawing a pension of £17 per month. He got a house and 46 acres. His mother, who holds the local post office and has another son living with her working as a blacksmith, also got an addition. She has also a daughter, who was a teacher, living with her.

Mr. LYNCH

What is the name?

Mr. WALSH

Fahy. There is another case of a police-sergeant—Tom Staunton. He is also supposed to be drawing a pension of £17 per month and he got land to the extent of about 70 acres. I ask the Minister to compare the position of those people with the position of the people whose names I read out to him. I ask him to compare their Poor Law Valuation and their rent and to say whether that was a fair and just distribution of the estate. It is commonly rumoured around the district that the local inspectors are not to blame. In fact, the common rumour is that the local inspectors positively refused to give land to those people and that they told them they would get it in spite of them. And they have got it. Another man got land—this is an argument that has been used for refusing the claims of people that I have gone to the Land Commission about—and he is a shopkeeper. He is in a fairly big way of business. I went to the Land Commission about a woman on the Moorehall estate. She held a cottage on the demesne. Her family for generations held that cottage. Her husband was a carpenter. For want of employment, he had to go to America. She has eight children and she was refused land on the ground that her husband was a carpenter. That was the sole reason for refusing to give her any land. Another case that I communicated with the Land Commission about was that of a man in the village of Kilmaine— the village blacksmith. All he got was about two statute acres, on the ground that he was a blacksmith. I ask the Minister what is the difference between a blacksmith in the village of Kilmaine and in the village of Carnacon? What the people of this district want the Minister to do is to send down an independent inspector and let him hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the distribution of this estate. Let him hear both sides of the story and, as far as I know, the people are willing to abide the result. They are fully prepared to accept the result provided the inquiry is open and above board. There is another man—Thos. Callaghan —who I thought might be the man to whom the Minister referred when he mentioned the £9 valuation. I did not put that man's name in. He has 46 acres. I know the land and it is very bad. In fact, one could say that five or seven acres of good land would be as good as the whole lot of it. The proof of that is that the Poor Law valuation of those 46 acres is only £9 5s. The Minister also mentioned that the husband of one of the women whose names I had in the question was in the asylum. I am sure the Minister is aware that thousands of the small farmers of Mayo are away a great part of the year in either England or Scotland and that it is quite a common custom for their wives to do the work in their absence. The argument which the Minister makes does not hold water, so far as Mayo is concerned. I ask the Minister, in the interest of justice, to hold this inquiry and I give him a guarantee that if the inquiry is open and above-board the people will abide the result.

Mr. LYNCH

With regard to the division of land, I personally do not know of any estate in the Country where the division gave anything like general satisfaction. It would be contrary to human nature, in a sense, if it did, since you have so many claimants for parcels of land when an estate is being divided. It would be expecting too much to expect that the division would give all round satisfaction. The Land Commission has no hope of giving such general satisfaction in the division of any estate. It can do no more than act in a manner which it thinks is fair and equitable in any circumstances. The Deputy says that the local inspectors were not to blame.

Mr. WALSH

That is the common rumour.

Mr. LYNCH

I think I can disillusion the Deputy in that respect, because the procedure in the Land Commission is that they normally go on the reports of the local inspectors. If the Deputy is satisfied that the local inspectors were not to blame, why does he ask that another inspector be sent down? If the inspectors fully satisfied the people there that they were doing the fair and just thing, why send down another inspector? Apart from that, the very first name on the list of valuations over £10—it is £18 15s.—that I got from the Land Commission was that of the man whose rent the Deputy says is £5 12s. I admit that there may be some mixing up of names. The name on my list may be that of some other Pat Walsh. That is quite possible and it is even probable in the circumstances because when I made inquiries about the division of this estate I found that all the documents were with the inspector, including the scheme for division.

Mr. WALSH

Regarding the statement I made about local inspectors not being to blame, I referred to local senior inspectors. A particular inspector in Mayo, it is commonly said, definitely refused to consider the schemes of these people. Whether the other inspectors were to blame or not, I do not know.

Mr. LYNCH

It would be the senior inspector in the district who would send up finally the scheme from the sub-inspectors. It would be his function to go through the scheme after it had been handled by the junior inspectors and send it on to the Land Commission. In the usual course, he would go up and discuss the matter of the division with the Land Commissioners. The scheme of division of that estate is with the local inspector, and, therefore, I do not know who the persons are to whom parcels of land were given. I cannot, therefore, say whether the two R.I.C. men got land or not, because the Land Commission were not able to give me the information this evening. They had not the documents. That is the position in regard to them. It would have been better, perhaps, if the matter had been postponed for another week, because the Land Commission is expecting the return of the report within the next three or four days and, with the report, the documents.

Mr. WALSH

I am in this position: I do not wish to make a personal attack on any official until I am quite sure. If the Minister will give me a guarantee now, that he will have this report in a week's time, I am quite willing to postpone the matter.

Mr. LYNCH

The Land Commission hope to have the report back in three or four days. I am not giving any guarantee about sending down an inspector or anything of that kind. That will not arise if the Deputy is satisfied when the report comes up. He can discuss the report with Mr. Roddy or myself.

Mr. WALSH

I want to have it discussed in the House.

Mr. LYNCH

The Deputy can raise it in the House.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m., until Thursday at 3 p.m.