A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, the debate on this Estimate has been mainly confined to the question of the acquisition and distribution of lands. I propose to refer in a somewhat different manner to those particular questions. First of all, I should like if I could possibly get from the Minister a declaration as to what exactly is the policy of the Government in regard to the holding of land. I want to know if it is the definite policy of the Government to create a State ownership in land, and if there is to be any definite guarantee either in title or ownership to the present possessors of land in this State. Various Ministers have repeatedly stated in this House that neither the title nor the ownership of a farmer in his land was in jeopardy. There are evidences everywhere that this is not so. In fact, one might put it this way: the Act of 1933 was passed through this House under false pretences. There was reiteration after reiteration by Ministers in the course of that debate, and by Ministers in other places outside this House in reference to that Act, that there was neither intention nor desire on the part of the Government to put any decent farmer holder out of his land, to disturb his title in any way, or to make his holding in any way less valuable. During the last four or five years since the operation of that Act we have had numerous instances of what practically amounts to eviction. We have had cases which if they had happened in the remote days of the Land League agitation would have brought about in many places even serious breaches of the peace. A position has arisen where no farmer feels absolutely safe in the possession of his holding. Certainly no farmer feels that if he were to purchase a farm he would be allowed to hold it. In fact, some farmers feel that if they offered a farm for sale the mere fact of their offering it for sale would be ipso facto offering it to the Government for division because they feel that the Government would in such circumstances step in and take the land. They are justified in those fears, because that is what is happening all over the country. Not alone have the Government disturbed the title and ownership of land, but they have decreased the value of land out of all proportion to what it was. No man of any sense is going to give any real value for a farm when a doubt remains in his mind that, having purchased it, it will probably be acquired by the Government for distribution in a short time. There are at the moment, I think, 180 inspectors of the Land Commission perambulating throughout this State inspecting various farmers' lands, and notifying them in some cases that there was an intention to inquire into the possibility, if not the probability, of acquiring their lands for distribution. While those 180 gentlemen are let loose over this State making those inquiries, how I ask you is any farmer to feel sure that he is free to go about his ordinary business, and that he is going to be left undisturbed? He cannot do so, and every Deputy realises that he cannot do so.
To-day I asked the Minister a question about the acquisition of a holding in my county. I asked whether it was the intention of the Land Commission to acquire a certain holding, and the Minister said it was being considered whether or not it would be desirable to acquire this holding. Why should it be considered? This is a holding in the mountainy part of my county. It was bought within the last 12 months by a neighbouring farmer, who has himself a large family, five of them being sons. I do not know how many daughters he has, but he certainly has five sons who are prepared to indulge in the operation of farming if given a chance. This particular farmer has, in fact, gone further than most farmers to prepare his sons for farming, because he has sent two or three of them to the agricultural colleges provided by the Ministry for the preparation of young men to be decent farmers. He had no intention for any one of the five other than to earn his living on the land. This man is himself in possession of a holding the valuation of which is somewhere around £30 or £32. To his credit, he has brought up a large family on that holding, a holding which the Minister may probably say afterwards is fairly large. It probably would be considered fairly large when taken in relation to farms in Mayo. It is a farm of about 80 acres, I believe. I am not sure of the exact size. Of this large acreage, however, 30 or 40 acres are only suitable for afforestation. In fact, at one time, there were negotiations about taking it over for afforestation, and 20 or 30 acres of this farm that this man holds constitute reclaimed land; it is land reclaimed by his forefathers and by himself and put into the condition in which it now is and which does not provide a possibility for any one of his five boys to make a living for themselves.
In connection with the other farm I mentioned, this particular man had the grazing of it for many years because his own farm was not big enough. He took the grazing of most of it and sometimes of the whole of it, and eventually, when it was offered to him, he purchased it because he had the money with which to purchase it and had the desire to set up his congested family—and I am using the phrase in its proper sense—and because he had the temerity to purchase the farm for his congested family, the Land Commission propose to acquire it for the relief of congestion if there is any congestion in that neighbourhood. I do not know whether there is congestion in that neighbourhood or not. I do not believe there is. Anyhow, there is no more congestion in that neighbourhood than there is in connection with the case of that particular farmer with his five sons. I do not know whether or not the proposal to acquire it will go through eventually. I hope it does not, and I do not believe that the Land Commission, when they come to analyse the circumstances properly, will allow it to go through. I believe that they will not allow it to go through, but I hold that it ought never to have been questioned at all. However, it just illustrates what I have been saying previously, that no man is safe in purchasing land in this State or in selling land in this State or is secure in his tenure, and that any man in his land is subject to the will of the present Government, or of any other Government that happens to be in office.
I put it to the House: Is this a desirable state of affairs or is this a policy that should be pursued in this State in the interests of agriculture or any other interests in this State? Apart altogether from the question of the security of any man in his farm, there is the question of value, and there is the question of temporary borrowing, if one may put it that way, because that is perhaps more important, at the present moment anyhow, than the mere question of value. Everybody knows that it has been necessary, or should have been necessary if it could be done, for farmers, during the last three or four years, to borrow money, but they could not borrow it. Their circumstances were bad enough, but by the action of the Land Commission in rendering their possession and ownership unsafe they were denied any chance or any hope of borrowing money from any lending institutions, because the lenders, such as the banks and others knew, as the Ministers ought to know, that the farmers' title in possession or ownership was not worth a twopenny stamp.