asked the Minister for Lands if he has recently received representations from the tenants on the Maconchy Estate to have the Maconchy bogs divided amongst the tenants of the estate; if he is aware that the existing trustees were nominated by the tenants for only two years and with the specific object of having the bogs divided; and, if so, if he will state if it is his intention to proceed with the division of the bogs in question.
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Division of Bogs.
The Land Commission have considered representations received regarding the trust bogs on the Maconchy Estate, County Longford, and have informed the correspondents, on behalf of the tenants, that it is not proposed to acquire these bogs for the purpose of division. In 1938, when vacancies existed in the number of the trustees, the beneficiaries under the trust nominated persons to fill the vacancies temporarily, pending a decision by the Land Commission on an application which had been made to have the bogs acquired and divided. The decision, taken after full consideration of the matter, was that the bogs should not be acquired. The present trustees were appointed by deed dated 21st February, 1942, to continue the permanent administration of the trust bogs under the provisions of the scheme and regulations under which they are held.
Is the Minister aware that in 1939, when these trustees were nominated, two Land Commission inspectors were present, representing the Land Commission, and that there was an undertaking given by these Land Commission inspectors and by a Deputy representing the Government Party that they would be in office for only two years?
I have no such information.
Is the Minister not aware of the report of these proceedings which was sent to him by the secretary of the meeting, the last paragraph of which recites that the five trustees appointed pledged their word of honour to get the Land Commission to divide the bogs and that if at the end of two years there was no division, a second meeting would be held and new trustees appointed? That is on page 16 of the report.
I do not understand how the trustees could bind the Land Commission.
The Land Commission appointed the trustees in perpetuity. The trustees were not binding the Land Commission. They pledged themselves to the tenants and gave their word of honour that if the Land Commission did not divide the bogs within two years, they would call another meeting and that new trustees would be appointed. Notwithstanding that pledge, the Land Commission appointed these trustees in perpetuity, thereby breaking the word that the trustees gave to the tenants.
I do not see how the Land Commission is concerned in this. If certain trustees made promises which they were unable or unauthorised to carry out, that does not affect the Land Commission. The trustees, as I pointed out, were appointed temporarily in 1938. The trustees then were appointed on the 21st February, 1942, permanently and, might I say, the bogs are in the ownership of the tenants of the estate.
The Minister says, if I understand him correctly, that the trustees were appointed temporarily in 1938.
That is correct.
They were appointed, in so far as the Land Commission could appoint them, and on an action taken in the High Court the appointment was quashed. Then, by deed, the Land Commission corrected its hand and got these trustees appointed by the High Court. I am not denying that. Yet the pledge was given that they would be reappointed after two years. The Minister asks me to tell him how the Land Commission were bound. One of these inspectors, when asked who called the meeting, said: "I, on behalf of the Land Commission, called the meeting". Then again he said: "I have listened very carefully to what the speakers have said. I am here representing the Land Commission." Therefore, the Land Commission have to do with the appointment of the trustees.
I fail to see how a junior official of the Land Commission could bind the Land Commission.
Just as a civil servant could bind the Government.