Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1945

Vol. 96 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Division of Bogs.

On Wednesday, 7th February, I asked the Minister for Lands the following question:—

"...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."

To that the Minister replied that he had received such representations regarding the trust bogs on the Maconchy estate, County Longford, and that he had informed the correspondents on behalf of the tenants that it was not proposed to acquire these bogs for the purpose of division. Then he proceeded:—

"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."

Then there were supplementary questions in which I asked the Minister if he was aware that when these trustees were nominated two Land Commission inspectors were present and that there was an undertaking given to the tenants that they would be in office for only two years and that if the bogs were not divided before that time that another meeting was to be called and that further steps would be taken either to appoint new trustees or to confirm the appointment of the existing ones. The Minister then said that he had no such information and he did not understand how anybody could bind the Land Commission.

The whole position is this. A number of the tenants in 1938 met a Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party and two Land Commission inspectors. There were notices sent out calling this meeting. When these gentlemen met the tenants, the tenants did not know what they were called there for, what duties they were to perform. One of them very properly asked what they were called there for, and then they were told that they were called to appoint trustees and that "they must do it to-night." Another tenant very properly asked: "What is the hurry?" and they were told that the hurry was the Land Commission inspectors could not come there every day. The Deputy said: "We will have to limit the time and get the business done. My anxiety is to get the business done to-night." Then a voice said: "Give time enough then for it." Then several voices said: "No, what is the meeting for?" Then this Deputy said: "The Land Commission has asked the tenants on the Maconchy estate to elect trustees to take charge of the Maconchy bogs. That is the business."

Anyhow, a count was taken of the tenants who turned up to the meeting and it was found that there were 159 out of a total of 800. There are approximately 800 tenants on the estate and the 159 tenants who attended the meeting proceeded to nominate the trustees, but only after there was a guarantee that they would act for only two years. Mr. Connellan, the State Solicitor, who appeared on behalf of the tenants, said that he represented a certain section of the tenants and that the only recommendation the tenants were prepared to make was that the bogs be divided. He was told by the Deputy and by the Land Commission inspectors that the only way they could be divided was to appoint the trustees—that there must be somebody in charge. Then the tenants very properly said: "Won't the existing trustees do that—what is wrong with them?"

At that stage the officials and the Deputy were careful to say: "We have nothing at all against any trustee." They knew that the law of slander could take effect there and they had no charge to make against any of the existing trustees. But apparently the way to get over the difficulty was to reappoint the existing ones and put in five other people. That apparently would please the Deputy and somebody else—seven trustees. There is a good deal of opposition to appointing any trustees. At a certain stage the solicitor acting for the tenants, addressing the Deputy and the Land Commission inspectors, said:—

"I am instructed now, gentlemen, that there will be no recommendation going back to the Land Commission as to the appointment of trustees. The only recommendation will be the division of the bog amongst the tenants. I understand one of the trustees has resigned and two are acting. The legal difficulty can be got over by the Land Commission."

Then, again, there is a point made that if they do not appoint the trustees all is up. A voice said: "Let the bogs be divided," and the solicitor appearing for the tenants again asserts that the only thing to do was to have the bogs divided.

Again, one of the Land Commission inspectors said: "I have listened very carefully to what the speakers so far have said. I am here representing the Land Commission and Mr. So and So—naming another inspector of the Land Commission—has come with me to hear your views on this question. So far, we believe you are all interested in having this bog divided and that the different tenants will each get a certain allotment. There are physical difficulties with regard to that particular question, as we, working in the Land Commission for a number of years, know." He then proceeds to show that there will be difficulties in the dividing of the bog, and goes on to say: "Those you select may not be altogether representative of the majority of the tenants, but if you give us a consensus of the opinion on the estate, it will do. I have nothing to say against anybody; we are here to represent the Land Commission and to hear any suggestions you have to offer in the matter. We would like to hear some proposal or some discussion if you wish to discuss the matter further."

On the spot, it was again repeated that they would not appoint trustees but that they must have the bog divided. The assertion was then made that, unless the trustees were appointed, it could not be done, and the Land Commission inspectors said that somebody must act as trustees pending the division of the bog and it was suggested then that five trustees should be nominated. The tenants then for some reason or other asked the Deputy and the two Land Commission inspectors to go out. Some people took offence because of their being put out but after some time it was decided that the only recommendation to be made would be a recommendation to have the bog divided. A discussion in groups took place afterwards and the Fianna Fáil Deputy got going. It was suggested that the only thing to do was to appoint the trustees. They nominated these trustees, and the end of it was that the five men appointed pledged their word to have the bogs mapped to the tenants and divided within three years. At the end of the two years, it was decided to have a meeting, "and" said the Deputy, "remember that this arrangement is limited to two years."

It is now seven years since that meeting. An action was subsequently taken in the High Court as a result of which the appointment of these trustees was quashed. Then the Minister applied to the President of the High Court, who acts in cases like this where the Lord Lieutenant legally acted formerly, and these new trustees were appointed permanently. The result of it all is that endless litigation will arise. Eventually the Deputy—and I must give him this credit—said that the reason he was at the meeting was that he was a member of the Dáil Courts for many years and that nearly 50 per cent. of the cases that came before them had to do with this bog. Personally, I am aware that it has been a source of income to the lawyers in County Longford and a source of work for the judges in Longford Court. There is only one small way in which all the trouble and litigation can be avoided, and that is, by carrying out the wishes of the tenants and dividing the bogs.

The tenants submitted this memorandum to the Minister on 31st January of this year:—

"At a meeting of the tenants held in Edenmore School seven years ago trustees for a two-year term were appointed. These trustees were sanctioned by the Department, and the chief purpose in appointing trustees at that time was to have certain bogs on the estate divided equally among the tenants. These trustees did not fulfil their duty as they have made no progress, and the position at present is that their friends get all the bogs each year, while others get none. Meetings of the tenants were held recently for the purpose of having the Land Commission acquire the bogs from the trustees for division among the tenants. Three hundred tenants out of less than 400 attended those meetings and are in support of this move. Meetings of the trustees were also held at which delegates of the tenants attended and a resolution was passed that the secretary of the trustees communicate with the Land Commission on the matter. Five trustees out of a total of six have given their consent that the Land Commission should acquire the bogs for the purpose of division among the tenants. As directed by the tenants and trustees, I wrote to the Land Commission on the matter, but I have received an unsatisfactory reply, copy of which is attached. As directed, I am sending a similar letter to the other Deputies for the constituency. I trust you will press the case in the interests of the tenants."

The memorandum is signed by the secretary of the tenants. The Minister, in reply, says that he does not propose to acquire the bog.

The point I want to make is that these bogs have already been acquired by the Land Commission. They are Land Commission property and the Land Commission has not to go through any process of acquisition, and, therefore, the Emergency Powers Order, which stops the Land Commission from proceeding, does not affect the matter, as these bogs have already been acquired by the Land Commission. If the Minister and the Land Commission are anxious to meet the wishes of the tenants, they can divide these bogs without any trouble. It is true that each tenant will get a smaller parcel. Some tenants have large parcels, and division of the bog will make these smaller, because everyone will get an equal share, but, like rationing and such matters, justice will be done and everybody will get what he is entitled to. A good day's work would be done by the Minister in the interests of fair play and peace in the district in getting the Land Commission to proceed with the division.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to make one further point. I am satisfied that the existing trustees carried out the trust so far as any human being could do so. No trustee or number of trustees in trying to carry out that trust could avoid giving offence to somebody, and I am certain that the trustees acted perfectly bona fide in everything they did. They made mistakes, but they were mistakes which, if I were one of the trustees, I would very probably make myself. That is as fair a way as I can put it. The mistakes, however, have been exaggerated and, of course, we have had the usual charges for which we in County Longford are famous—charges against the other fellow of being deliberately mala fide—but I say that the trustees have discharged the trust fairly well. There are matters, however, which have created a situation which can be solved only by the division of the bog, and I know thoroughly well that each of the Deputies in the constituency would be very grateful to the Minister if this matter were settled once and for all. It would be a relief to me; it would be a relief to the other Deputies, and it certainly would be a relief to the Minister.

I am very anxious to preserve all the rights and privileges that a Deputy has in this House, the right to raise a matter by way of question and, again, on the adjournment for further enlightenment. Usually, questions are raised on the adjournment because the answer given earlier is considered unsatisfactory. If the Deputy would read his series of questions and my replies thereto, I really think he could not argue that my replies were in any way unsatisfactory, or that I tried to cover up the evil doings of the Land Commission. The Deputy says that the bogs should be divided amongst the tenants. As far as I know the tenants own the bogs. When the Maconchy estate was purchased in 1908, 1,000 acres or so were divided amongst the tenants and trustees appointed. These trustees have been appointed from time to time under a deed of trust. As I pointed out to the Deputy, the trustees were appointed permanently in 1942. Deputy MacEoin admits that they are functioning satisfactorily.

Therefore, I do not quite understand why the Land Commission should have unloaded on to it some job that is the responsibility of the tenants. The Deputy has talked about people in the County Longford challenging the bona fides of the other fellow. I am afraid, judging by the debate that we had on another Bill in the House this afternoon, that the County Longford habit has got into the Fine Gael Party. I think that if Deputy MacEoin and myself were to debate the question of to-day's Bill we, above any other two Deputies in the House, would be on our own ground. In regard to this particular matter, however, I have listened carefully to what the Deputy has said in regard to the bogs in question, and I must say that on it I think he is not on his own ground. He has not clarified the position for me nor can I give him any more satisfactory answers than those which I have already given him. I should also like to say that I was not aware until it was very late this afternoon that Deputy MacEoin proposed to raise this question on the adjournment. I am not blaming him for that. He was too busy disembowelling the Government in regard to the Bill that was then under discussion. I suggest to him now that if he will put in writing the facts as he has stated them to-night and will clarify them for me, I will give this case a full examination and will reply to him fully. If that meets the case, I think it is the simplest way of dealing with it.

Very well.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 16th February, 1945.

Top
Share