Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1935

Vol. 55 No. 16

Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Division of Land in Longford.

General MacEoin

This morning I asked the Minister for Lands a question in connection with a parcel of land allotted to a small farmer named John Rawl, of Drumnacross, Moatefarrell, Edgeworthstown, on an estate known as the McDowell Hollinshead, and on another estate in Drumnacross, Longford. I asked the Minister if the Land Commission had received a letter from Mr. Rawl saying that he was prepared to surrender the portion of land allotted to him on condition that it was reallotted to the McDowell family. The Parliamentary Secretary denied the receipt of such a letter. I also asked him if Mr. Rawl made application for any other portion of land in the district and he said "Yes," but that as Mr. Rawl had been allotted a portion of land on the McDowell Hollinshead estate none was granted to him on the Bond estate in Newtownbond. I then asked him a further question if he proposed to migrate Mr. Rawl from that district, and he said that the matter was not considered.

Of course, it was quite obvious that there must be reasons why I asked these particular questions, and with your permission, Sir, I wish to put this case to the Parliamentary Secretary for Lands in the following manner: Mr. Rawl is a small farmer living on an uneconomic holding in a rather congested area in North Longford, not far from the village of Ballinalee. His holding is on or adjoining this farm of McDowell Hollinshead. Some years ago the Moatefarrell farm was about to be divided, and Mr. Rawl made application for a portion of land there. For some reason or other his application was not granted. He then made application for a portion of the estate of Ballyhoolivan, but he did not get any allotment. For some reason or other the Land Commission acquired the estate known as the McDowell Hollinshead estate. Mr. Rawl never made any application whatever for any portion of these lands. But the Land Commission, having inspected and acquired that estate, invited Mr. Rawl to accept a portion. Mr. Rawl refused to accept unless those in possession were in agreement.

For the purpose of finding out whether the family of McDowell were in agreement or not, the Land Comission Inspector saw Mr. McDowell. Mr. McDowell objected to anybody getting portion of these lands which the Land Commission had acquired. Mr. Rawl there and then refused to accept the portion offered him. At a later stage, that is nearly 12 months afterwards, the Land Commission inspector or somebody on their behalf invited Mr. Rawl again and the same routine took place. Then Mr. Rawl and the inspector saw Mr. John McDowell. The family were agreeable to Mr. Rawl acquiring portion of the land and there and then both signed an agreement for the repurchase of the holding. I want it to be understood that at no time did Mr. Rawl make application for that portion of land. In other words, by agreeing to accept this parcel of land Mr. Rawl was assisting the Land Commission and was assisting the McDowell family, in so far as by agreeing to take it he was preserving for the McDowell family their home and portion of the land.

After he had signed the agreement an agitation sprang up to compel him to surrender the land. If you will recollect, Sir, some time ago I asked a question in connection with it and everything seemed satisfactory. The local Fianna Fáil club took the matter up and for very good reasons I believe dropped it, and did not take any further part in the matter. But like a lot of things when once started it is hard to stop and another organisation was invited to take part in the campaign. The result was that North Longford was posted all over with posters declaring that a meeting would be held and would be addressed by certain people and that the people of North Longford would be informed of what these people thought of Mr. Rawl's action in acquiring portion of the estate. No action was taken officially in connection with the matter but a number of people congregated in the vicinity of Mr. Rawl's home.

However, the net result of the meet ing was that Mr. Rawl agreed to surrender the land on condition that the McDowell family would get it. He agreed under compulsion, notwithstanding that he wanted the land as he is a small farmer on an uneconomic holding. He surrendered the land on that condition—that the McDowell family would get it but he was not prepared to surrender the land for the benefit of anybody else. If the Land Commission were going to give the lands to anybody he thought it should be to the McDowell family or to himself. After some days Mr. Rawl received a receivable order and a demand for his annuity. He returned that receivable order with a letter accompanying it pointing out that he never had possession of the lands; that they were unfenced and that in view of the opposition that had arisen to him in the district he was prepared to surrender the lands on condition that they were given to the McDowell family.

Mr. Victory

Is he not grazing that land for the last seven or eight years?

General MacEoin

Now, Deputy Victory can go and look at it and see whether Mr. Rawl grazes it himself or not. The Deputy butted into this matter, but the Ballinalee Fianna Fáil Club who took it up ran away from it. At any rate Mr. Rawl got no reply to that letter. Then the fences were put up but immediately after they were cut down by some people whom I do not know. I am not going to say who they are. I say that because I am half inclined to think that the second association that came into this matter dropped it and did not take any further part since then. I am not quite sure of that but anyhow it seems that Mr. Rawl's decision to surrender the land on condition that it was given to the McDowell family seemed to satisfy them.

Still, however, Mr. Rawl has never had possession of the land, and the only reply that he received to that letter of his, returning the receivable order, was a sheriff's notice some weeks ago to pay within 31 days or there would be a distraint. That places him in a very unfortunate position. He is a man who has always paid his rent and rates and, as far as I am aware, has his rent and rates paid on his present holding. He is an ideal type of man, hard-working, and he feels that if he surrenders this land altogether, as has been suggested to him, without condition, it would militate against his ever getting any land again from the Land Commission. Whether that is right or wrong I do not know, but that is his point of view. In discussion with me, however, he said that he was prepared to do anything that the Land Commission thought well, and to show that he was agreeable to any decision they might take he said that he was prepared to accept alternatively the piece of the Newtownbond estate which he did not get or, alternatively, that he was prepared to become a migrant.

In view of all the circumstances— and I know that the Land Commission are aware of the fact that I am not overstressing the case, because there are difficulties to which I do not wish to give expression and there are some dangers to which, again, I do not wish to give public expression—but the Land Commission are aware of these facts and, considering all that, I think that the Land Commission should give Mr. Rawl an alternative piece of land somewhere else or migrate him, when he is willing to go. Of course, it may be argued that if they do that now it will be because there was pressure brought to bear on them. I think that, in the circumstances, they could ignore that particular line of thought and that, in the interests of peace and harmony in the district and in justice to Mr. Rawl, they should treat him generously. I suggest that they could do so by either allotting him a portion elsewhere or migrating him or keeping him in mind for the next division of an estate, wherever it may be, in the district.

I am not trying to charge the Land Commission with neglect in any particular way, except just the one point that there was a considerable delay in the fencing. I think that if the fencing had taken place a little bit sooner a lot of this trouble could have been avoided. I do not want, however, to charge the Land Commission with doing anything that should not have been done. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir, through you, to say that he will consider that matter along the line of thought I have suggested to him.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands (Mr. O'Grady)

This unfortunate case has a very bad history. As Deputy MacEoin has pointed out, or, at least, as I could infer from his remarks, the McDowell people seem to have forfeited their right and title to these lands, and, far from the Land Commission having maltreated them or not given them fair and due consideration, what happened was that in 1922 a certain sum of money was advanced for the purchase of this holding. During the ten years that followed, the McDowells never paid one cent in respect of that advance. In the meantime, the tenant had gone into bankruptcy and the Land Commission could not obtain payment of the annuity for all these years. Subsequently—I think it was in 1930—the Land Commission made an offer to the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy consequent upon which eventually they agreed to appoint the elder McDowell, the son of the former tenant, to become the new tenant of approximately two-thirds of the old holding and made an offer of 15½ acres to Mr. Rawl. Both agreements were signed on 14th of April, 1934, and Mr. Rawl was then given possession.

The position of the Land Commission is that they are prepared to give whatever protection he requires to Mr. Rawl to hold and work his holding, but neither the Land Commission nor the State, as such, can surrender to any organisation or any agitators in the district who may get up a similar agitation. What would be the position all over the country if the Land Commission were to be weak enough to surrender to similar agitations cropping up all over the country? If they were to surrender to such agitations, the last position would be worse than the first. It is no wonder that the various organisations to which Mr. McDowell turned for sympathy all turned him down, as Deputy MacEoin has pointed out, because no organisation or no self-respecting man could stand over McDowell in the agitation he is seeking to create. The Land Commission had no option but to insist on the annuity payable on these lands both by Mr. McDowell, junior, and by Mr. Rawl. As I have stated, any protection which is needed will be adequately given. I do not think there is anything further that I have to say on the matter.

General MacEoin

The charge was made against Mr. Rawl that he applied for this particular land, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that he did not apply for this land but for a portion of land elsewhere. This, however, became available and was offered to him. The application he sent in was for the Moatefarrell land, although the charge was made against him that he actually applied for this land.

Mr. O'Grady

I stated that it was offered to Mr. Rawl, but he made the purchase agreement fully cognisant of the circumstances in the case.

General MacEoin

He signed the agreement after consultation with Mr. McDowell.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. till Thursday, 11th April, at 3 p.m.