Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment—Division of Galway Estate.

Mr. Beegan

A question appeared on the Order Paper to-day over the names of Deputy Jordan and myself in regard to the division of an estate in County Galway, the Daly estate. I can tell you that it was with great reluctance we put down that question, but owing to the fact that a holding of land on this estate was allotted to one particular individual, a landless man, whose father owns a holding of 80 acres, the greatest indignation has been caused amongst all parties in that district and we felt that we had to put down that question. We got the type of reply that we more or less expected. Of course, the reply which the Minister gave was largely based on the brief of the Land Commission officials who dealt with the scheme. I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister, because we know that under Section 6 of the Land Act of 1933 he cannot interfere with matters of this kind and he is placed in a rather awkward position having to come here from time to time to ask for money to carry on the work of this Department. He has no other function save that, and yet he has to bare his shoulders to the lashes which will be handed out to him for the sins of omission and commission of certain officials in his Department.

We were told, of course, that this particular allottee had all the necessary qualifications and that he was suitable in every way. We were also told that the I.R.A. applicants were disqualified because of the distance they resided from this particular estate. I do not think the question of distance should enter into this. I agree that it may be desirable to confine it to a certain distance, but, after all, we must recollect that distance was no great object in the old days when these men were called upon to render service to their country. I thought that the question of distance was only considered in the case of uneconomic holders who would be given increases from a particular estate and that they could not get land if they were over a mile distant from an estate.

We were also told in regard to this particular allottee that his father's holding was 58 acres in extent and that the valuation is £35 10s. 0d. I think that in itself is an admission, because a £35 10s. 0d. valuation in County Galway is a pretty high valuation. We contend that his father has over 80 acres and that that holding would bear sub-division, if necessary. If, for instance, this particular allottee were given half of that holding and his other brother, who is not in this country, were given the other half, they would still have better holdings than any of the landless men who have got holdings in County Galway. It is very significant that this particular allottee was amongst the first to be interviewed when the inspector who was in charge of the preparation of the scheme came on the estate.

I do not know what outstanding qualification this man has. He is the only son at home on this 58-acre farm with the £35 10s. 0d. valuation that the Minister speaks of. His only brother crossed to England six or eight months ago and joined the Irish Guards regiment. I wonder were these particulars put before the Land Commission? I wonder were they given to the inspector in charge? If they were, then I think what has happened is directly contrary to the principles of the Land Commission and of the land settlement policy generally.

It has been admitted that a certain number of the old I.R.A. made application for holdings there. Amongst those old I.R.A. applicants were men who are not supporters of Fianna Fáil, and they, too, were passed over. I have always tried to defend the actions of the Land Commission in the matter of the division of land, and when, under the 1933 Act, certain powers were taken away from the Minister, we welcomed that, because we believed it could not be thrown up to us that there would be discrimination or that land would be given for political reasons. I am not alleging altogether that this particular holding was given for political reasons—that is, in relation to the different parties in this country—but I do believe that the very fact of this allottee having a relative in the British Army was the very strongest qualification he could have, and it was certainly the only qualification he had.

While I do not wish to say anything as regards the part of the question which sets out that the district is not a very congested one, I will admit that, strictly speaking, in accordance with the law, it is not a very congested district; there are not so many people under £10 valuation, but at the same time that does not say that it may not be congested. In that particular district, which is an agricultural district, a very intensive agricultural district, we have a number of people on holdings whose valuations are not greater than £15 and, in the families there, there are from four to seven or eight grown-up people. I think that there would be nothing wrong in providing for these, even if they were anxious to cut out the I.R.A. We have heard a good deal about giving preference to the I.R.A., but it did not operate in this case. I do not claim that all the old I.R.A. in that area are supporters of the present Government. There are a few at least who are not. But even if the land were given to I.R.A. men, no matter what their Party affiliations at the present time, there would be no indignation of the kind that we are now faced with in that part of the country.

I believe if the Minister cannot interfere in this case and see that something is done, then it is pretty near time to put an end to land purchase altogether rather than have this kind of thing going on. I believe in this case full particulars were not given. When the Minister was on the Opposition Benches I remember reading in the Press that he said there were men in the Land Commission worth their weight in gold. I quite agree with him, and there are men to-day well worth their weight in gold. But there must be more men there who have no regard at all for the responsibility with which they are entrusted. I cannot understand how this particular allottee was given a holding on that estate.

I do not intend to say much more because Deputy Jordan will have a few words to say. I ask the Minister, if it is at all possible, in the interests of justice and fair play, to institute an independent inquiry into the division of that estate. I think he will find, not only from his own supporters and ours, but amongst the strongest supporters of Fine Gael, the same feeling of indignation. I am sure that they too will be prepared to place the facts before him and confirm what we have stated here, that this particular man was given a holding to which he was not entitled. I have no more to say on that, but I do hope that there are some holdings reserved there yet and that something will be done to alleviate the existing grievances.

Mr. Jordan

As my name was attached to the question on the Order Paper along with Deputy Beegan's, I would like to point out to the Minister some facts in connection with the division of this estate. Although it may not be exactly relevant, I would like to remind the Minister that some time ago when a question was raised here about meetings that were held in Galway in connection with land distribution, or rather negligence in the matter of land distribution, my friend Deputy Brodrick, on the opposite side, stated that when we were addressing the meeting we expressed a fear that the people would not vote for us if the land was not divided. The Minister, in his innocence, thinking that the Deputy had stated the exact facts, said that there were unreasonable Deputies on both sides of the House. I wish to point out to the House on this case that no such statement was made and that the Minister is wrong in his estimation of our being unreasonable. In dealing with this case, I am not being unreasonable at all, and am only dealing with the facts, as agreed to by the people concerned, in connection with the distribution of the land in this case. I endorse everything Deputy Beegan has said as regards the allottee. The very fact of the Land Commission admitting that this man's father has 58 acres of land, with a valuation of £35 10s., in my opinion, justifies our putting the question down and also justifies the indignation expressed by the people there.

I sent recommendations with regard to every person on that estate, and adjoining it, who asked for them. I did not discriminate between people, no matter what their political views were. I think it is an extraordinary thing that this land is divided in the manner described by the Minister in his reply and, as he described, after full investigation into the circumstances of each proposed allottee. I am very glad to see that anyhow, because the Minister evidently accepts full responsibility for the division of the land and for the giving of a farm to a man, an only son, whose father is the possessor of 58 acres, as is stated here—although we believe he has more than that—and with a valuation of £35 10s. The other allottees on the land are quite young. The older people, with the greater claim to old I.R.A. service, were left severely alone. It is stated in this reply here that the old I.R.A. applicants lived up to a distance of seven miles away. Possibly that is true—that people who applied for land did live that distance away— but I have here the names of a few old I.R.A. men, who made application for land on that estate and who actually lived on the estate.

There is the case of Michael Walsh, of Knockatoher. On what grounds was he turned down? He is an old I.R.A. man, aged about 45 or 46 years. He gave good service to his country and, without a doubt, was in a position to stock land and manage it properly, if he got it, and he proved to the satisfaction of the people that interviewed him that he would be able to manage it properly, and certainly would not default. Then there is the case of Joe Keating, also an old I.R.A. man, who is married and has children, and he was left out of the scheme. There is also Patrick Ford, of Kiltulla, an old I.R.A. man actually living on the estate, and there is a man named Sheridan. The latter is one of seven sons. Whether he is the first or the last of the seven sons I do not know, but I think he cannot be the last, because if he were he would probably have some charm as a seventh son and might have been able to get some of the land. There are two daughters also. He is living on the estate and his grandfather was evicted out of the estate and he got no compensation.

There are up to 20,000 acres of land in East Galway, where Deputy Beegan comes from, all around him, and although there were only 433 acres being divided in Dunsandle, three or four migrants were brought in, and they were coming in to the detriment of good I.R.A. men who were living in Dunsandle. The final part of the Minister's answer is to the effect that one of these is receiving full consideration for a holding on another estate, and he could not get it on the estate in which he was living. If that is a sample of the way the Land Commission deals with the division of lands in County Galway, and if the same tactics are to be resorted to in the future, the indignation of the people in Galway is likely to increase. Those of us from Galway, from all sides of the House, I believe, are anxious for the preservation of peace in Galway, but I doubt very much—and I accept full responsibility for what I say— whether the people there, seeing their just claims for land on the estates on which they are living being ignored and the land divided in that fashion— and I am not speaking for Fianna Fáil people any more than for Fine Gael people—I doubt very much whether these people will be likely to put up with it quietly. I believe that it will be very difficult to make these people live in ordered conditions or within the law.

The Land Commission are indiscreet, to say the least of it, in the way they have dealt with these cases. Personally, I am not satisfied that full consideration was given. If full consideration had been given, there could be no justification whatsoever in giving that farm of land to a man, an only son, whose father has 58 acres of land with a valuation of £35 10s. while men who were prepared to work the land and who proved by deposit receipts that they were in a position to manage a farm of land, if they got it, were left out. In the case of this young man, I believe the father is almost 70 years of age to-day. Certainly, he is well over 60. I know him, strange to say, for about 35 years, and when I first met him he was a good, hardy man without a doubt. Without hesitation, I should say that he is well over 60 or 65 years of age, and in the case of a man of that age his only son, certainly, ought not to be allotted the farm. I agree with Deputy Beegan in his protest and, like him, I hope that the Land Commission will institute a fresh inquiry into the whole case, particularly the case of that particular allottee. They should inquire into the whole case in general, and I trust there will be some compensation or some settlement of the state of affairs that exists in Galway at the present moment in that particular area, and that some of the disgruntled and dissatisfied men will get what they are legally entitled to, and that is a share of the estate on which they live.

Mr. Brodrick

With regard to this question, Sir, I should like the Fianna Fáil Deputies to be honest. I know, just as well as Deputy Beegan and Deputy Jordan, the cause of the trouble there. The cause of the trouble is that four migrants were brought down from Gort, when people there had not got land.

Mr. Jordan

I said that.

Mr. Brodrick

That is the cause of the trouble. Probably, the Land Commission may be of opinion that there was not sufficient congestion—I am taking it from an inspector's point of view—in the district, and probably that the landless men had not sufficient finance to take over these holdings. Probably the men who came from Gort were on very bad holdings, but I believe there were sufficient young men in the district who were in a position to stock those four holdings. In fact, I go so far as to say that the four holdings would probably suit six landless men in the district. Now, the Deputies who have spoken have been making capital out of the young man, an only son, who got a farm. Strange to say, there is a second son, and also, strange to say, the father of this chap has married secondly. The son has no hold whatsoever on the old holding, which is £30 valuation. The father has another brother living with him along with the two sons, and he has also two daughters.

The inspector of the Land Commission went to this man and said: "You have looked for a holding. Show me what you are able to do, show me the money you are able to put up." The applicant replied: "I have so much stock at the present time and my father will help me." He was then asked: "Do you want a grant for a house?" He said: "No," and his father said the same thing: "No, we can build a house." The one reason that Fianna Fáil Deputies are making capital out of this matter is because the applicant who got this particular holding is a prominent Blueshirt.

Mr. Jordan

That is wrong.

Mr. Brodrick

I know it is not.

Mr. Jordan

The Deputy is introducing an element into the debate that we refrained from introducing. We are here for Blueshirt applicants as well.

Mr. Brodrick

If the Fianna Fáil Party were straight in this matter they would kick against the Gort migrants, one of them a friend of a Fianna Fáil Deputy in this House. I should like to see those four holdings distributed amongst the people in the district. I would say that the four holdings could be made into six holdings. There is another matter that I wish to bring before the House in connection with this question. There is a ploughman who has a free house, free fuel and the grass of a cow on the estate. He holds his job and he has got a holding of land also. He is a prominent Fianna Fáil supporter. He is not losing his job as ploughman on the estate, and he has a free house, free fuel and the grass of a cow. There are other workers on the estate also. There is one worker with a family of five, three of whom are working on the estate, and for the grass of one cow they have to travel three miles. I am only interested in this question to see that these four holdings would be given to local people who are able to work and stock them. I am also interested to see that the workers on the estate will get some consideration. There are only 200 acres left with the mansion. If the work is given up there in the near future—and it is possible that the sawmill will be closed down in a short time—the men working in the sawmill—there are only five or six workers—should each get the grass of a cow, a small garden and some provision should be made so that they would be able to grow some hay for their cows. That is my attitude to this question. I would not have risen in this debate were it not that Deputies wanted to make capital out of the case of one tenant who was prepared to stock the land and build a house. The only reason in my opinion that objection has been taken to him is that he was a prominent Blueshirt, seeing that no objection has been taken to the four men who were brought from the Gort district.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Boland)

As Deputy Beegan has said, this question is connected with one of the excepted matters, as far as the Minister is concerned. The Land Commission deal with the allocation of land as well as the acquisition of land, so that although I am responsible for the Department, really the allocation of land is not a matter in which I can interfere. It has been generally admitted that there was no congestion in this area. Deputy Brodrick complains that four migrants were brought in from another district to relieve congestion in the district from which they were migrated. If there had been local congestion in this area, the local congests would have got first consideration. Two of the men who are losing their employment on the estate are, I understand, being provided with holdings.

Mr. Brodrick

Would the Minister say if the ploughman is one of these?

Mr. Boland

My information is that two of the men who are losing employment on the estate are being provided with holdings. Only one person in the district, as far as I can gather, has got an addition to his holding. I take it from that, that in the immediate neighbourhood of the estate there was only one uneconomic holder. Therefore there was no congestion in that area. There is congestion in other parts of County Galway. People from other parts of Galway have been brought into County Meath and into my own constituency. Surely Deputy Brodrick does not object to people being brought from another part of his own county to this district in order to relieve congestion in the county? It seemed to me that that was his real objection.

Mr. Brodrick

That was really at the bottom of the trouble, but the other Deputies did not mention it.

Mr. Boland

That is quite consistent with Land Commission policy. In regard to the young man to whom a holding has been given, there have been conflicting statements made here to-night. My information coincides with Deputy Brodrick's statement, that there are two sons in the family and also two daughters.

Mr. Jordan

Not now.

Mr. Boland

Well, at the time the report was made out. The Land Commission reported that there were two sons in the house and also two daughters.

Mr. Brodrick

And a brother.

Mr. Boland

I do not know about the brother. It is also reported that this man was able to provide a house and to stock the farm provided for him on the estate. As far as I can see from the report, the Land Commission acted in accordance with the policy laid down for them in connection with the allocation of land. That is, they took this man as living in the immediate neighbourhood and being landless. The other son was the man who was likely to get the home holding. The fact of his living in the immediate neighbourhood and of being landless fulfilled two of the main conditions. Deputy Jordan says that there were some old I.R.A. men suitable to work the land, actually living on the estate. That does not tally with my information. I am told the nearest point to the estate at which any of the old I.R.A. men live is two and three-quarter miles away. Some of them are as far away as seven miles. Deputy Beegan did not say that they lived near the estate. I do not think that Deputy Brodrick is justified in alleging that there was any question of political considerations in this matter at all. He did say, if I do not misunderstand him, that somebody was brought to this area from Gort because he was a relation of a Deputy of this House. That is a wrong insinuation to make. I can assure him that this scheme was drawn up, as far as I can see from the report, strictly in accordance with Land Commission policy. Old I.R.A. men have got preference in other places as long as they were not too distant from the holdings and as long as there were no suitable landless men in the district. If there were no suitable landless men in the district, then the old I.R.A. men would get first preference amongst the landless men brought in from outside. In this case there were six suitable landless men, one of whom was this man in question. According to the information supplied to me, the Land Commission has acted in accordance with the policy laid down for them. I, myself, would not like the job of dividing land. I would not take it. There will be always dissatisfaction no matter where an estate is divided. I might think that if I were a Land Commission inspector things would be all right, but, I am sure, if I were, my scheme of division would cause dissatisfaction, too, and I am sure if any of the Deputies concerned in this question took on the job, the result would be the same. I do not see that I can say anything more on this matter, but I shall investigate the statements made by Deputy Jordan and Deputy Beegan.

Mr. Jordan

Would the Minister please give consideration to the case of the man called Sheridan? The Minister stated that the special allottee about whom this question was raised got consideration because he was one of two sons and had other qualifications—plenty of money, etc. He said that he got consideration because he was one of two sons. Would he now consider the case of Sheridan, who is one of seven sons?

Mr. Boland

I have got some information about him here, but I do not know whether I should make it public. He might not like my doing so. I shall take a note of the matter and see what can be done. If Deputy Jordan wants to see the information I have got, I shall be glad to show it to him. I would not care to publish it.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th April, 1937.