Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Feb 1934

Vol. 18 No. 5

Appointment of Land Commissioners.

I move:—

That the Seanad censures the Executive Council for their action in appointing, pursuant to Section 4 of the Land Law (Commission) Act, 1923, Mr. Daniel J. Browne, and Mr. Eamon Mansfield to be Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission, in view of the implied assurance conveyed by the Minister in charge of the Land Bill, 1933, when that Bill was in process of enactment by the Dáil and the Seanad that such Commissioners would be appointed from within the Land Commission or otherwise from the ordinary Civil Service.

The object of this motion is to call attention to the appointments recently made in regard to the positions of lay commissioners under the Land Act, and to give the Minister an opportunity of justifying them and, if possible, reconciling these appointments with a certain statement made by him in the Seanad during the passing of the Land Bill in August of last year. Senators will remember clearly that an amendment was moved to Section 7 of the Bill by Senator Counihan which, if it had been accepted, would have had the effect of securing that the appointments to such positions, in the first instance, would have been men who would have had experience of Land Commission work prior to the 1st June, 1933. When that amendment came up for discussion in the Seanad, the Minister in charge of the Bill made the following statement:—

"I do not see, for the life of me, why anybody might reasonably fear that the Executive Council in the future will not appoint men to the post of land commissioners or officers of the Land Commission or members of the Appeal Tribunal whom they can stand over in public."

He also stated:—

"In practice, from the point of view of carrying out the purpose of the amendment, I would have no objection to it, but there is a principle involved which I am not going to accept, and that is that the Executive Council is not to be entrusted with the appointment of the members of the Appeal Tribunal."

If those statements were not intended to convey the impression that it was the intention of the Minister to give effect to the purpose and principle of Senator Counihan's amendment it is difficult to know what meaning could be read into them, unless it was the object of the Minister to mislead the House as to his real intentions.

It is scarcely necessary to stress the importance of these positions of lay commissioners in regard to the administration of the Act. By sub-section (5) of Section 7 they may override the opinion of the judicial commissioner in matters both of law and fact. It was because of this, certainly, that members of both Houses argued strongly for the insertion of some provision in the Bill such as that embodied in Senator Counihan's amendment which would be a guarantee that the lay commissioners would be men whose experience would ensure impartial and equitable administration of the Act when it came into operation.

Statements similar to those I have quoted of the Minister, in some respects perhaps more explicit as assurances, were also made by him in the Dáil. It will hardly be questioned that it is of the greatest importance to have men of experience and administrative capacity discharging the duties which the lay commissioners will be entrusted with. Will the Minister throw some light on the qualifications in this respect possessed by those who have been appointed? The only reply made by the Minister to all the criticisms and arguments in regard to this matter in both Dáil and Seanad was to repeat that there would be no appointments that he could not stand over in public. Can he stand over in public the appointment of a national school teacher and a country solicitor at a cost to the country of £3,000 a year? Mr. Mansfield will enjoy his pension in addition to his £1,500. I do not know what the amount of his pension may be, and I would like the Minister to tell us.

Certain provisions in the Land Act have been the cause of great instability in the country and of great uneasiness in the people's minds. The farmer with his market taken from him and his property threatened with confiscation is in a terrible position. The appointment of these two lay commissioners, who are also appeal commissioners, has not tended to allay his fears. This motion gives the Minister an opportunity to show that he can stand over the present appointments and to furnish evidence of the qualifications of the men appointed in regard to both experience and administrative capacity.

I second the motion. I rather regret that it takes the form of a vote of censure. I would prefer if we could have contented ourselves with a simple interrogation of the Minister. I hope the Minister will be able to show in his reply to this motion that a vote of censure is not warranted, and that both appointments have been fully justified. I regret that the Minister whose statements have been quoted by Senator Miss Browne is not here to-day. It is not easy for the Minister who is present to, I suppose, take responsibility for everything that a colleague says. I take it, however, that there is collective responsibility in the Ministry, and that therefore the Minister present takes responsibility not only for the appointments made, but for the statements made in connection with the appointments prior to their actual making.

Senator Miss Browne referred, in the course of her remarks, to the fact that statements similar to those made by the Minister in charge of the Bill in the Seanad were also made in the Dáil and made in perhaps more explicit terms: in the form of an implied assurance that what was asked for in Senator Counihan's amendment was going to be complied with in principle if not in the actual wording. I will refer the Minister to these statements which were made in that debate. They are quite interesting and should not be lost sight of. They are of sufficient importance, I think, to be dealt with by him when he is replying. The quotation which I am about to give is taken from the Dáil Debates of the 25th July last, Col. 491. Deputy Dillon was speaking to an amendment to Section 3 moved by Deputy Roddy in connection with the appointment of these lay commissioners. He queried the Minister as follows:—

Mr. Dillon: Could not the matter be easily settled if the Minister would say what is in his mind as to whom exactly he will appoint to the rule-making authority? Does he intend to appoint an existing commissioner?

Mr. Aiken: If it was to be done to-day I would appoint an existing commissioner.

Mr. Dillon: And may we take it that it is not his intention to appoint a commissioner who has only just been selected?

Mr. Aiken: Not the slightest.

Mr. Cosgrave: Will he say that he will not appoint a person without any experience at all?

The Attorney-General: It is open to the Minister to appoint a land commissioner to this rule-making authority. A man will be a commissioner the moment he is appointed. These rules are rules for the setting up of machinery, and the Minister has indicated that he has no more desire than Deputy Roddy to select anyone for the rule-making authority who does not know his job.

Mr. Lynch: What is the objection to putting in the two years' experience?

The Attorney-General: The man appointed will only be one member of the rule-making authority.

Mr. Brennan: But what is your objection?

The Attorney-General: The suggestion that the Minister would appoint anyone without experience is so absurd.

On Section 5 the matter cropped up again and the following quotation is taken from Col. 570 of the Dáil Debates; also for the 25th July:—

Mr. Aiken: The position is this, that I think the present Government is as capable of choosing men to be lay commissioners as either the British Government or the Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

Mr. Dillon: Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken: When we appoint lay commissioners we will stand over them in the Dáil and in the country. When we appoint two lay commissioners to be members of the paid tribunal we will appoint efficient and competent men upon whose honesty the country and the Dáil can rely.

Mr. Dillon: With experience of the Land Commission?

Mr. Aiken: With experience in these matters.

These extracts which I have quoted, if they mean anything, would seem to imply that men of practical experience in administration of Land Commission work would be appointed to these positions. I cannot see how any other meaning can be read into these words. As Senator Miss Browne has stated, the assurances given in the Dáil were repeated in this House, I admit in a slightly modified form, on the occasion of Senator Counihan's amendment. What I am concerned with is this: has the Minister kept faith with the Dáil and the Seanad in these appointments, or is it to be the procedure that implied assurances that certain things will be done will be accepted in good faith and then brushed aside as of no consequence when the carrying out of the assurances is expected to be given effect to? I hope the Minister will have an answer to these criticisms.

In regard to the two gentlemen appointed, I have no personal feelings whatever. I met one of them once in a most casual way, and that is the extent of my acquaintance with him. As regards the other gentleman, I never met him and would not know him if I saw him. The only evidence that I have been able to secure as to the qualifications of these two gentlemen is what appeared in the Irish Press when their appointments were announced. As regards the qualifications of Mr. Browne, they are set forth in the following statement:—

"Mr. Browne from 1920 to 1922 was Secretary to the Department for Home Affairs under the Irish Republican Government, and was largely responsible for the administration of the Republican Courts and Republican police. He was imprisoned for some months and was released shortly before the Truce.

"In 1922, Mr. Browne resumed his practice as a solicitor in Tralee and became solicitor to County Kerry Board of Health, Listowel Urban Council and County Kerry Vocational Education Committee. He was also appointed solicitor to Kerry County Council, but the appointment did not take effect owing to the amalgamation of that position with that of secretary to the County Council.

"Mr. Browne won first place at all his legal examinations, and at the final examination was awarded the gold medal of the Incorporated Law Society. He was one of the three members of the Commission which inquired into the shooting of T.J. Ryan and George Gilmore, at Kilrush, County Clare."

These are the qualifications. I presume if there were any additional qualifications they would have been enumerated in this newspaper, but I cannot find one iota of evidence to indicate knowledge or administrative experience of this particular class of work: anything that would show that in making these particular appointments the Ministry carried out the assurance that was given here by the Minister in charge of the Bill when it was passing through this House.

As regards the other gentleman, his qualifications were set out in the same newspaper in this way:—

"Mr. Mansfield is a member of the Central Executive of Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and has had a long and distinguished career as a national teacher. He was three times elected President of the I.N.T.O., and from 1911 to 1916 acted as General Secretary. As President he was spokesman of the deputations which visited Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Augustine Birrell—

these may be his qualifications—

(then Chief Secretary for Ireland) in connection with the national teachers' salaries question. He also took part in discussions with the Provisional Government in regard to the finance of Irish education.

"In 1922 Mr. Mansfield became a Senator, but resigned as a protest against the execution of Republicans. Subsequently he was appointed, on the nomination of the Labour Party, a member of the Commission of Agriculture.

"Mr. Mansfield is a keen student of all land purchase problems and has been Chairman of the Land Settlement Association and the Cottage Tenants' Association since their establishment."

These are Mr. Mansfield's qualifications. I fail to find, as in the other case, the slightest evidence of what, I think, is the essential requirement for this appointment—administrative experience. When this amendment of Senator Counihan was passing through the House, Senator Comyn made the following illuminating observation:

"I do not think that the Minister has shown any disposition to yield to political pressure in the appointments which he has made or which he proposes to make in the Land Commission."

I wonder if Senator Comyn is prepared to repeat that statement to-day.

I suppose that the best time to answer a charge such as Senator Milroy has made against me is on the spot. What I said on the last occasion sounds now to me to be very reasonable and very moderate. I did think at the time that the Minister had shown no disposition to yield to political pressure in any appointments which he had made. I think that the same thing applies, to a great extent, to the Government in their appointments. A great number of appointments have been made—300 or 400— and instead of giving them to political favourites they have given them—they are small appointments—by way of competitive examination. Here we have a vote of censure based upon what is described as an "implied assurance" given by the Minister in charge of the Bill in 1933, that the lay commissioners would be members of the Land Commission or the Civil Service. So far as my recollection goes, there was no such assurance. I am sure that Senator Milroy will agree with me that when there was a motion before the House to confine the appointments of the lay commissioners, as they are described here, to persons already in office, that motion was not accepted by the Minister.

It was carried by the House.

But not accepted by the Minister. Therefore, I cannot see how the Minister gave any "implied assurance" that he would appoint any member of the existing Land Commission, and I think that there was never any suggestion that he should go to the ordinary Civil Service for lay commissioners to sit beside Judge Wylie in his court. If he gave any such assurance, I should be greatly surprised because it would be a very absurd thing to do—to put beside a judge of great eminence, great ability, and great experience, a civil servant, presumably with no legal training and no experience, who would pit his opinion against the opinion of Mr. Justice Wylie on legal questions.

That is just what is being done.

That is not a job for a civil servant. The Dáil and the Seanad have decided that, instead of one opinion on matters to come before the tribunal over which Judge Wylie presides, a limited number of quasi judicial matters are to come before Judge Wylie and his two colleagues. The Dáil and the Seanad have passed this Bill. Therefore, they have decided that, instead of one mind as heretofore, there shall be a majority of three minds to determine these questions henceforward. Supposing Senator Milroy were to look around for people to be lay commissioners on either side of the judge, where would he seek them? Would he seek them amongst the Land Commissioners who have been accustomed for years to receive the judgments of Mr. Justice Wylie and to obey them? Would they be likely to differ from any judgment of that learned judge? If they did differ from him and gave reasons for their differences of opinion, do you think that these reasons would carry much weight on a legal question or on any of the quasi legal and quasi administrative questions that will come before the tribunal? Suddenly promoted from a position of habitual obedience to a position of quasi judicial and quasi Ministerial authority, what respect would these opinions command, if they were to differ at all?

The Minister and the Executive being placed in that position by a statute of this Parliament, what were they to do? I think that the selection of existing officials of the Land Commission was out of the question. I think also that the ordinary civil servant was out of the question.

If the ordinary civil servant were to be appointed to sit beside a man like Mr. Justice Wylie, possessing great skill, great legal authority and great experience, and were to differ from him, and give good reasons for his opinion, these reasons would, to quote a famous phrase of Isaac Butt, "go forth without authority and return without respect." The Minister being in that position both as regards existing officials of the Land Commission and as regards ordinary civil servants, in carrying out a statute of this Parliament which authorises the appointment of lay commissioners——

There is no repeal of the Act and the Act gave them these special powers. In that position, I do think that the Ministry chose the two men who were most suited for the positions and I shall give my reasons. It is said that Mr. Mansfield was a national teacher or an ex-national teacher. Mr. Mansfield has been associated with public life for a long time. He was elected a member of this House, though I do not know whether he sat or not. To my knowledge, he has taken a great interest in one class of the community—the evicted tenants. That shows he must be a man with a conscience and a heart, because the evicted tenants have been put in the shop window by every political party for the last thirty years. They have been kept in the shop window and nothing worth while has been done for them. I suppose they were too great an asset to all the political parties in the past to be lost. I hope this Government will adopt a different attitude in dealing with what are eloquently alluded to as "the wounded soldiers of the fight." They were the wounded soldiers—the casualties—in the fight, but by all previous Governments they have been left derelict. Mr. Mansfield has taken a very keen interest in that class of the community and that is one reason why I think that for the administration of this measure, which is meant to be a genuine measure, his selection is justifiable. There is another reason why his selection is justifiable. The men who understand the land laws and the various Land Acts are very few. The men who have a thorough knowledge of land legislation in this country are few. In former times, Mr. Tim Healy and his brother, Maurice, were regarded as the only men in Ireland who understood the Land Acts.

What about Cherry?

Richard Cherry understood the Land Acts and wrote a book on them, but I do not think that he was regarded as having the same profound knowledge of these matters that was possessed by the redoubtable Tim and his brother, Maurice. I am not saying that they possessed that knowledge but they had the reputation of possessing it and, perhaps, a just reputation. In later times, I have not met any man, lawyer or layman, who has such a comprehensive, accurate and detailed knowledge of the Land Acts as Mr. Mansfield has. I can say that from my own experience. I knew nothing of the resolve to appoint him, but when I saw the announcement of his appointment I, to use an Irish phrase, said to myself, "that is a good appointment."

Then there is the case of Mr. Daniel F. Browne. I know Mr. Browne well and I have known him for a great many years. I knew him as a solicitor's apprentice in Dr. O'Connell's office in Tralee. I knew him afterwards as a solicitor. The record which has been read by Senator Milroy testifies to his ability. He got first place in his examinations and he was a gold medallist. It is not easy to become a gold medallist, but I agree with Senator Milroy that that in itself would not be sufficient. Here we find a man who was a brilliant scholar, and with experience as a practising solicitor in Tralee, and Senator Miss Browne says he was only a country solicitor. That might be all very well for County Wexford but a country solicitor in Tralee in the County of Kerry is a different proposition altogether.

On a point of explanation I should like to say that one of the ablest land lawyers in Ireland lives in Wexford. He has had more land cases passing through his hands than any man in Ireland.

That may be so, but that only proves that he had a big business. Many solicitors have big practices who are not necessarily very good lawyers. However, I say that Mr. Browne acquired in a very short time a very extensive practice in Tralee, in the County of Kerry, where every man is a lawyer. That is the reason why Senator Counihan manifests such a knowledge of law in the resolutions he proposes from time to time. Let us see what Mr. Browne is. Is not Mr. Browne, in addition to being a lawyer, entitled to the status of a civil servant?

Since when?

When Senator Miss Browne was enthusiastic once in 1920, 1921 and 1922, Mr. Browne was carrying on the business of the Home Office, which was established under Mr. Austin Stack. In that way he had some claims to be a civil servant, although I do not admit that a civil servant has any right whatever to be made a lay commissioner. Again, however, Mr. Browne was chosen from a great number of applicants, I am sure, for a very responsible position, that of Secretary to the Department of Justice. Is there any objection to his work in that capacity? I do not wish to utter of a member of my own profession too much by way of commendation, but I will say this in relation to Mr. Browne, that I believe that in regard to ability, in regard to experience, and in regard to judgment and a fair outlook, he is as good a selection as could be made. I would say also in regard to Mr. Mansfield from the point of view of commonsense and honesty of outlook no better appointment could be made.

Now, it is very right, if occasion arises, that censure should be moved. in this Seanad. Why not? But I think that, on the present occasion, Senator Miss Browne has not made—and I say this with great respect to her—a proper use of that privilege. There is no ground for censure here. I do not wish to make any imputations or to have it understood that Senator Miss Browne has any particular ulterior motive. In fact, I am sure she has not. She is inspired by political zeal and it has blinded her to the merits of these two gentlemen who have been appointed to this office. Let her wait and see whether they are capable of fulfilling the duties of that office. I do not accuse her of any improper motive at all in regard to this resolution, but I think she would have done much better if she had selected some other subject. It is an invidious thing, when men have been appointed to an office, and before you have any experience of their conduct in that office, to introduce a resolution of this kind beforehand, casting a reflection upon them. For that reason I hope that Senator Miss Browne will not press this resolution and that, if she does press it, it will be voted down.

I should like to join with Senator Comyn in suggesting that Senator Miss Browne should not press this particular question. My first reason is, to be quite honest, that the assurances which the Minister gave in this House were not sufficiently definite to justify the wording of the motion in its present form. Whether the Minister wanted to evade these assurances or not I do not know, but he did, and I do not think that the motion should be put forward in exactly the manner in which it has been put forward. There is one point, however, which is important, and that is the question of the qualifications of these two gentlemen. They are being put up to sit on the bench as judges. In one case I am perfectly satisfied that the selection is justifiable. That is the case of Mr. Dan Browne. He is an extremely capable man and bears, in my particular county, an extremely high name. Everybody was very pleased, quite regardless of Mr. Browne's political views or of their own political views, to see him promoted, as he was, to the Ministry of Justice. I definitely think that people who have cases before the Appeal Tribunal should be grateful that they have got anybody like Mr. Browne on it. As regards Mr. Browne, I think he is perfectly capable of being a judge. It has been said that he is a country solicitor, but he has practised for a considerable time, and it must be remembered that most of the 38 district justices in the country were country solicitors who had got a sound knowledge of every type of law through their practices, and I think that everybody is agreed that on the whole those selections have been justified.

As to Mr. Mansfield, I question whether the training of a teacher justifies the elevation of a man without legal knowledge directly to the bench of judges. Beyond that I do not want to say anything more, but I think it is regrettable, when there are people with direct experience of the difficulties which have been experienced in the carrying through of these migrations from west to east, of the expenses entailed and of the impartial administration of justice as between all sides, that such people should not have been availed of to fill these posts.

It has been attempted to twist certain words and phrases of the Minister here and in the Dáil into a promise that some person in the Land Commission itself would be appointed if anybody was to be appointed. One of the quotations that have been made has shown very clearly that no such promise has been made. However, whether such a proposal had been made or not, I am strongly of opinion that it is very desirable that the Land Commission should not be kept, as it has been kept to a great extent, in a sort of private establishment to be run by a selected number of people who come in young and live all their lives in the Land Commission, and the very nature of whose employment precludes them from being the likely persons to deal with such a subject as this which extends all over Ireland. As a matter of fact, I think it was extremely desirable that some breach should be made in that impenetrable mass of which the Land Commission consists, and that some people with outside experience and knowledge of the land should be appointed on any committee designed to rectify what has been done in the past.

I suppose I have been connected with this matter probably longer than anybody here in this House, and I have had a good deal of personal knowledge both of the Land Commission and of the land itself and of all the different Acts passed from the very beginning; and I say, after consideration, that the Land Commission up to the present has not accomplished the work that was intended for it in the beginning. The first Acts that deal very much with anything of the sort were passed in 1903 and 1909. In those days the idea of appointing a Land Commission, and of the whole land legislation of the time, was that the land should be divided as much as possible, that tenants should be allowed to own their land, and that this should be carried out by commissioners who would see that it was carried out as quickly and as reasonably for all people concerned as was possible. It was said always in the House of Commons and everywhere that this would be a cheap measure and that it would enable the business to be done cheaply and quickly. Neither of these things has been accomplished. That was 30 years ago and, so far from the Land Commission having carried out the object for which it was established, it has blockaded it and prevented any such happy event resulting from what they were asked to do. The fact is that it got into such a state of chaos and congestion that it was practically impossible to carry out anything. I myself happened to be connected with the selling of an estate a few years before the Great War. It was held up, for one reason or another, for some 15 years, although all the evidence that was wanted was put before the Land Commission. All the previous rights in the land were already before them, and so on, and, in spite of the fact that the owners of the land and the other people concerned were anxious to see it carried through, it was held up for some 15 years, through letters passing and people coming down to see it, and all sorts of other things. After the Treaty we were all hoping when we came here that this matter would be carried through, but every year we are being told that there are still some hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the hands of the Land Commission. They are still stuck there.

I remember, some years ago, going down to the south of County Mayo to pay a visit to a parish priest. He brought me out on the balcony and said: "Do you see that long line of houses over there, all built by the Land Commission"? I said that I did. He said: "Those houses were built six years ago and there is no one in them yet. Although the land has been bought no one has been put into the cottages yet. Now I am going to have a mass meeting to see what effect it will have." It did have an effect, because immediately after the meeting, and the parish priest pressing the matter, people were put into those houses. The Land Commission had the land and the houses, had the arrangements made, but they were so immovable, and there was so much congestion in the offices, that they could not get the people into the houses. That is only an example of what is going on all over the country. People who will get rid of that mess require to have some outside influence. I know Mr. Browne: I do not know the other gentleman, but I am aware that he always took a popular interest in the land question. I think it was necessary in whatever appointments were to be made that something should be done to break through the formidable mess that existed. It was like having 20 or 30 cars blocking traffic in a narrow street, people being unable to get out at one side or the other. That state of affairs would continue for years if something was not done to end it. The Land Commission has got very large quantities of undivided land in its hands. Why? I do not know. In some cases, where land was divided, rents were fixed that the people were unable to pay. To my own knowledge people with good farms of 20 acres were unable to pay these rents, and they let the land for grazing. I asked them why they let the land in that way and they told me that it was impossible to pay the high rents that had been fixed. The whole question has been blocked in that way. I am very glad that some effort has been made to break through the system that existed, of having scribblers spending half their time writing notes in the Land Commission offices. It is time to stop it.

The circumstances should be very strong indeed before such a House as this should pass this motion. Ostensibly this is a motion to censure the Executive Council for having made two judicial appointments. There is no gainsaying that if the motion were passed it would be an implied censure, indirectly perhaps, but an implied censure on two men exercising judicial functions. The reason should be very grave, and should be adequate, before such a motion was tabled. I can speak for one of the Commissioners who, to my personal knowledge is not only a brilliant lawyer but a man of great independence of mind and character. He had a very extensive legal experience in a county where, almost as a matter of course, a considerable portion of his practice would be dealing with problems such as will come before him in the office to which he has been appointed. There will be this very great advantage that in the discharge of his duties as a practising lawyer in the past he was on one side one day and on the other side the next day, so that he got to know the merits and the demerits of cases in a manner that no civil servant could possibly acquire. Mr. Mansfield's name has been a household word in connection with the land problem for many years. He is a man of character. I do not know him personally. I know Mr. Browne professionally, and in his capacity as Secretary to the Department of Justice. I know that Mr. Mansfield was one of the best-informed men in Ireland on the land question. To put it mildly, to table a vote of censure, having regard to the qualifications of these two men, is a rather irresponsible proceeding and I think the Seanad should not, in the circumstances, pass it.

I can only think that Senator Miss Browne did not recognise the full implication of the motion she put down. As Senator Dowdall pointed out, it is a motion of a far-reaching character. I know one of the Commissioners intimately for 30 years, and I can speak with full knowledge of what he has learned in the school of experience during that period. As a brilliant young man, he gained one of the highest places in his college course, and afterwards in his professional career. He is a Munster sportsman, and when a man is a good sportsman it will generally be found that he is broad-minded, and a good sportsman in most things. At a very early age, when Ireland was one, he was elected by 11,000 national teachers, composed of men and women of all creeds and politics, not only for three years, but for a longer period to a very responsible position, that of Secretary of the Teachers' Organisation, which he filled with great credit and satisfaction. Preferring to go back to teaching, and possibly wishing to go back to live in the county in which he was born, he withdrew from that position. He is the son of an evicted tenant. He worked on the land in his youth. The land was one of the loves of his boyhood and it followed him into his mature years, so that his name is a household word in connection with the land question. I do not think there is one man in Ireland who has made such a persistent study of land legislation as Mr. Mansfield. The various Acts of Parliament dealing with the land question, and with the financing of these Acts are matters with which he is perfectly familiar. If Senator Miss Browne inquired from some of the members of the Party that she so enthusiastically supports or from the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hogan, on whose authority we can rely, they would go far to disillusion her, because when the Land Act of 1923 and later Acts were before these Houses Mr. Mansfield was continually in touch with the framers and his help was much appreciated. He was responsible for many of the amendments that were introduced and passed by both Houses. That is something to go on in regard to his training.

For a number of years Mr. Mansfield was in intimate touch with the creameries of his native county, and at one time was manager of some of these creameries. His activities were of the most diversified character. He was also on the Wages Board, being the mutual selection of employers and employed. If the Cathaoirleach harks back to these days, possibly about the year 1921, he may remember meeting Mr. Mansfield in his capacity as Chairman of the Wages Board, which was afterwards taken over by the Department of Industry and Commerce. These were some of Mr. Mansfield's activities. It was stated recently in a Sunday newspaper that Mr. Mansfield was Chairman of the Evicted Tenants' Association. That is not correct. He was Chairman of the Executive of the Land Settlement Association, quite a different body. In his capacity as Chairman of the Wages Board, and as Chairman of the Executive of the Land Settlement Association, his judgment was always accepted by employers and employees, because he was found to be generous and broad-minded in his outlook.

Senator Miss Browne spoke of land confiscation. It was not to-day or yesterday that the word confiscation was used. It was used very frequently in connection with the Land Act of 1923, and even later. The word was used in this House when the Land Act of 1933 was before it. In its general principles that Act was nothing more than an alteration, in a detailed way, of the Act of 1923. I think I can appeal with confidence to Mr. Hogan, T.D., to bear me out when I say that Mr. Mansfield's services were very valuable at that time. He had the interest of the small farmer and workers generally at heart. He was chairman—a position he has recently resigned—of the Cottier Tenants' Association, a very large and important body of people. Another statement in the same newspaper was not quite correct. It stated that those appointed were not civil servants. I think Mr. Browne and Mr. Mansfield have a reasonable claim to be considered civil servants, if that is any recommendation for their selection for the Land Commission. When confiscation is mentioned, we know that the alarm is only raised by a certain class of people who own large quantities of land, and that the small farmers will not be in any way affected by the administration of the Land Act of 1933.

I happened to make some extracts in regard to the land holdings in Ireland. Holdings under £15 valuation formed 67 per cent. of all the holdings in the country; holdings under £20 valuation form 75 per cent. of all the holdings in Ireland; holdings under £50 form 92 per cent., and if we go on to holdings under £100 we find that they form 97 per cent. of all the holdings in Ireland. That leaves 3 per cent. of all those holdings with a valuation of over £100. These smaller holdings under £100 will not be affected by the administration of this Act, so that 97 per cent. of the farmers have no reason in the world to be alarmed by any thoughts of confiscation. Many of the holdings over £100 in valuation are worked and are resident holdings and nobody can find fault with the methods upon which they are worked, so that there also confiscation is out of the question. It is only fooling the small farmers to pretend that their land and homes are at stake in raising an alarm of this kind. In Senator Miss Browne's county, there are some 41 holdings averaging 750 acres, in respect of which, perhaps, there is some cause for alarm, and, perhaps, that was one of the reasons why Senator Browne was afraid of this man, who is a small farmer's man and a cottier's man. I hope that that did not influence her.

These 41 holdings, according to statistics, include about 30,000 acres. Surely those are lands that will need attention and, without any question of injustice, they will have to be dealt with if the country is to approach that measure of self-sufficiency which we all hope it will. In County Waterford, it is pretty much the same and, strange to say, the average rateable value of what might be called the wheat lands nowadays, the tillage land, is something about 10/- whereas the average valuation of these 30,000 acres is something like 16/-. It shows that the most valuable lands remain untilled and undivided. We have the utmost confidence that if there was one man to speed up this division, he is the man selected by the present Government. I do not think there is much more to say on the matter. In regard to Mr. Brown, I have heard many glowing accounts from people in a position to know his work in Tralee, a town with which I am very well acquainted, and the knowledge and experience he gained there of all classes of work in regard to land division is bound to stand him in good stead. There is no doubt, but that he will not sleep at his work, and I do appeal to Miss Browne not to insist on the passing of this motion and the vote of censure, not alone on the Government, but on those men who, I firmly believe, will fill, with a due sense of responsibility and high efficiency, the positions to which they have been called.

This is one of the most unpleasant motions that has been put down, and I think I ought to commence my remarks by protesting against the manner in which this motion was put down and was drafted. Senator Milroy, who has now left the House, indicated that he would have liked this motion to have been put down in different terms, but if my memory serves me aright, there is little or no change in the terms of the motion as put down by Miss Browne and the terms of the motion which was handed in here last week as an adjournment motion and which you, sir, very properly refused to accept as an adjournment motion. My feeling about this motion is not because it embodies a vote of censure on the Executive Council. That is something that the Executive Council will survive even from Senator Miss Browne. I have a much more acute feeling, a feeling of disappointment, almost of disgust, because it does attempt to censure, in a motion, not the Executive Council nearly so much as the two men who have been selected by the Executive Council to fill these very important positions. It has to be remembered that when men are appointed to a position by the Executive Council, when they assume a Civil Service position, when they assume a judicial or quasi-judicial position, they are not free to come into this House and defend themselves, and I think it is a gross breach of privilege for anyone in the Seanad with any sense of responsibility, not to speak of sense of decency, to name two people and to proceed in the way in which two Senators have done to-day, to abuse, to criticise and to attempt to throw odium on two men who have been so appointed.

I want to say that there is no power in this House, moral or otherwise, to throw any odium on either of the two gentlemen appointed. Both of them stand at the highest point in the opinions of the people of this country. Senator Miss Browne has referred to one of these gentlemen as a country lawyer. It is not for me to express any defence of country lawyers, any more than it is for me to express any defence of country doctors or country professional men of any other type, but it does betoken something in the nature of a mean snobbery of the worst type that one does occasionally come across, and I submit that the decrying of a man because he is a country lawyer, particularly by a person who comes from the land, is, as I say, the meanest type of snobbery to me. The other is an ex-national teacher. Well, what of it? Senator Miss Browne, may feel a superiority complex as a landed proprietress. Of that I do not know, but I want to tell her that the people in this country who did work for this country included some ex-schoolmasters and some who were schoolmasters until they paid the penalty for their nationalism, and it comes very ill from Senator Miss Browne to talk in terms of contempt of an ex-national schoolmaster, Mr. Mansfield has an honourable career in Ireland, second to none, and even if he were not a national teacher, even if he were a man in dungarees sweeping the streets of Dublin, he might still have capacity for being a much better land commissioner than some of those we have known in the past.

It is difficult to restrain oneself when one comes up against that type of snobbery which we thought had died with a lot of other things some years ago. Another Senator, Senator Colonel Moore, referred to certain aspects of the Land Commission, and before I go into my main argument, I should like to correct an impression that might be created with regard to the Land Commission by some of the remarks here this afternoon. Again, I say that it is mean and low-down and unjust and unfair to attack any body of civil servants in a House like this. That is no new line of thought with me. I protested here some years ago when a very important attack was being launched by one Minister against one of his officials, and I think that any fair-minded person will agree that at least the person ought to have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in such a position. Civil servants come into the same category as the two gentlemen who have been attacked, and I want to protest against any of my staff, at all events, being attacked in this House. If civil servants fall down on their jobs, then the Minister is to blame, and I should like to take this opportunity to say that with regard to my higher officials in the Land Commission, those of them with whom I have to deal, that I have never yet met harder workers, or men who have put their backs into their work as those officials have done. They have a most difficult task. No department in the State is subject to so much public criticism and all I can say, from my experience, is that all those men are giving of their best, and it is my job to see that they give of their best. If I am going to get the co-operation that I need from them, and if the Government is going to get the co-operation it needs from them, they are certainly not going to be subject to attacks such as have been launched here this evening. Senator Milroy comes into this House and criticises and abuses people whose boots he is not fit to wipe——

I criticised the Minister and not the gentlemen referred to, and I am quite sure that I would not allow the Minister to wipe my boots. He is not fit for it. The Minister wants to indulge in a burst of tirade and he will get just as much as he wants.

I am defending the two men appointed——

I never attacked them. I attacked the Minister and I criticised the Minister.

You seconded the motion and you supported Senator Miss Browne in her attack.

The House will recollect the sense in which I supported the amendment. I deprecated the idea of the motion being a motion of censure.

That is the first line I want to make clear in regard to this motion. Senator Miss Browne mentioned that there were incidents occurring in the Land Commission that were causing great uneasiness.

I said no such thing whatever. I said that the provisions of the Land Act were causing great uneasiness in the country. The Minister's statement is an absolute misrepresentation.

I withdraw. That is the interpretation I took from the Senator's remarks.

And I said they were causing great instability in the country, and that is true.

At all events, I want to make it clear here, before I go into the main body of my argument on the motion, that civil servants are carrying out their work and no finger of scorn can be pointed at either of the two gentlemen appointed. Who is Mr. Brown? The House has heard here this afternoon who he is and who Mr. Mansfield is. Both of them are, as I say, well known, and the facts that have been stated here this afternoon are all quite true. I am very glad that we have succeeded in inducing these two gentlemen to take up the positions they did. Mr. Brown was Secretary of the Department of Justice and it required considerable persuasion on my part to get him to give up the position he held. Senator Cummins has gone into Mr. Mansfield's past. He has pointed to his various activities and that saves any necessity for me to reiterate what he said. Senator Milroy would have preferred the then Acting-Minister to have been here this afternoon, and he wants to know if I take responsibility for what the Acting-Minister says. I take full responsibility, and the Executive Council take full responsibility, for what the Acting-Minister says. An attempt has been made to give the impression that the Acting-Minister, in coming before the Oireachtas on the various stages of the Land Bill, gave a promise that existing Land Commissioners would be appointed. I have gone to the trouble of extracting the various references from the debates, and I think it will be admitted when these are quoted that no such implication can be put upon the Acting-Minister's statement. On the contrary, the Acting-Minister clearly indicated his very definite stand on the question of the Executive Council having full responsibility for what they were doing.

In the original draft of the Bill, as introduced, it was proposed that "any two officers of the Land Commission for the time being nominated by the Minister" ...should with the judicial commissioner constitute the appeal tribunal. That is in Section 7 of the Bill "as introduced." But on the Second Reading of the Bill the Acting-Minister indicated his intention when he said:—

"In the Committee Stage it is proposed to amend Section 7 so as to provide that the lay members of the appeal tribunal shall be Land Commissioners appointed by the Executive Council instead of by the Minister."

That simply transferred the power of appointment from the Minister to the Executive Council. This course was adopted by the amendment No. 14 on the Committee Stage in An Dáil by substituting the words "two lay commissioners nominated for the purpose by the Executive Council." These quotations are from volume 48, No. 6, column 2382 and volume 49, No. 2, column 570, Dáil Debates.

That amendment (No. 14) was the subject of a very protracted debate in An Dáil, and I think the Acting-Minister made the position quite clear when he said:—

"When we appoint lay commissioners we will stand over them in the Dáil and in the country. When we appoint two lay commissioners to be members of the appeal tribunal we will appoint efficient and competent men upon whose honesty the country and the Dáil can rely."

I think Mr. Aiken's statement makes the issue very clear indeed. Moreover, the Acting Minister made it perfectly clear when, following various suggestions, he definitely stated that "we are not going to accept any of these restrictive clauses."

This matter was again dealt with on the Report Stage when an amendment was moved by the Acting Minister deleting the words "an officer of the Land Commission" and substituting the words "a lay commissioner." In dealing with the objection raised by Deputy Roddy, the Acting Minister clearly indicated his views and the views of the Government when he said:

"I thought we had already thrashed out this amendment. The Deputy may be sure that any person whom we appoint as a lay commissioner will be suitable for his job. This amendment would be restrictive. It presupposes that the Fianna Fáil Government is not as fit to make an appointment of an officer of the Land Commission as was the British or Cumann na nGaedheal Government, and that is an argument that I would not for one moment accept."

In the course of the same debate the Acting Minister said:

"The Government in appointing the lay members of the appeal tribunal will have regard...to the fitness of the man for the post. In no Land Act was it ever laid down that the men appointed to any post should be men of two years' standing." (Vol. 49, No. 4, Cols. 1261 and 1262.)

I think it is quite clear that the Acting Minister conveyed definitely that such restrictions as were sought to be imposed would not be accepted. Moreover, it is definitely made clear that such persons as were to be appointed were to be lay commissioners who would be nominated for the purpose of the appeal tribunal by the Executive Council.

Now we come to the Seanad Debates. I quote from Vol. 17, No. 4, Col. 1093, where it will be found Mr. Aiken said:

"While the present judicial commissioner is a man who is well versed in land law, rather an expert in it, and must have by now a fair knowledge of the price of land, that might not always be the case, and we have associated with him in our new appeal tribunal for deciding this question of price and other questions that are not strictly matters of law, two lay commissioners who will have a knowledge of the value of land and generally of the problems that are connected with the particular subject.

"I think that on the whole that is a better tribunal for the adjudication of appeals connected with land purchase than one single legal gentleman, no matter how great or how deep his knowledge of law may be."

That was our point of view. It was our point of view all through. I am satisfied to stand here to-day and to say that in all Ireland we could not have got two better men for the positions than the two we have appointed.

Senator Counihan in the Seanad moved as an amendment to Section 7 (2) requiring that "the first lay commissioners so appointed shall both have been officers of the Land Commission prior to the 1st day of June, 1933." The Acting Minister resisted this amendment pointing out that he had "refused an amendment similar to it in An Dáil because he believed that this Executive Council is just as competent to appoint Land Commissioners as any other Executive Council in the past."

Senator Counihan carried his amendment, but it was later rejected in An Dáil. The Acting-Minister made it clear all through all phases of the debate that he would not submit to any of the restrictions that members of the Opposition sought to impose. In dealing with the Seanad amendments in An Dáil Mr. Aiken made it perfectly clear again that under no circumstances would he accept any restrictive clauses, and in spite of that we are told that an implied promise was contained in Mr. Aiken's speech while Acting-Minister. I think that effectively scotches any suggestion that the Acting Minister of the time had any other notion than that the Executive Council should have full authority to exercise the powers of selection for the positions.

Now there were various matters quoted which I do not think were relevant to the subject. My regret is that it has been possible in either House of the Oireachtas to bring forward a motion such as this is and to deal with it as it has been dealt with. I have already expressed myself pretty forcibly as to my reactions to such an attitude. I suggest that it is lacking in justice and in ordinary decency not to speak at all of Christian charity or any other feeling of self-respect that those who move these motions ought to have. I suggest that the country is more than gratified by the two appointments, and as Minister I am more than gratified and I am glad to be able to say that my principal officials in the Land Commission are quite content and satisfied that two better men could not have been appointed to the positions.

The Minister has adopted the well-known and the well-tried course: when you have a bad case abuse your opponents. He has stated that the country is satisfied with these two appointments, and that this vote of censure is not merited. If he goes to the country to-morrow he will find that out, whether he will be censured or not. As I stated in my opening speech, the country is in a state of great uneasiness, and great instability has been caused by the provisions of the Land Act.

On a point of order. Have the provisions of the Land Act anything to do with the specific motion before the House?

I submit that they have nothing whatever to do with it.

As I said earlier, the fears of the people in the country have not been allayed by the appointment of these two land commissioners. We were told by Senator Comyn that Mr. Justice Wylie is a very eminent judge, that he is of high standing and great legal ability, that he has been judicial commissioner for many years and has given satisfaction to everybody. If so, why is he not capable of doing the work under this Government that he did under the other Government?

Cathaoirleach

That is not relevant, Senator, to the motion before the House.

We know that high officials who were too upright and honourable in carrying out the work of the Government were removed, but a judge cannot be removed, except by a vote of the two Houses. The Minister knows well that he could not get that, and what does he do? He appoints two chosen men to carry out the provisions of this Land Act. Now, I think, I need say no more on that question. Everyone knows very well the reason why they were appointed. I do not wish to cast any aspersion whatever upon the character of these two men except that they are unsuitable for their work. Senator Cummins said that the Land Act was of an exceedingly far-reaching character. I thoroughly agree with him. He also said that no new principles were being embodied in it. That is not so. There are new and very dangerous principles embodied in it, such as were never in any other Land Act.

I believe that a vote of censure on the Government is well merited, but on account of appeals that have been made to me by certain members of my own Party I do not wish to press this motion. My object in bringing it forward was to show the country that their rights and their liberties cannot be frittered away without some voice being raised in this House in their defence. I do not admit for one moment that this vote of censure is not merited. I think it is well merited by the Executive Council. I am satisfied to have the matter debated here and to show the country that the Government cannot act in any unjust or arbitrary fashion without our voices being raised in the defence of the people.

I would prefer that this motion should go to a vote of the House. I think it is desirable that it should. I do not see the purpose of putting down a motion—then withdrawing it merely to make it an excuse for a vicious attack and to attempt to throw discredit on the two men who have been appointed to these positions.

May I intervene for one moment?

Cathaoirleach

Has Senator Miss Browne the permission of the House to withdraw her motion?

I have achieved my object and I ask for leave to withdraw it.

Cathaoirleach

If the House does not give permission then the motion must be put. Personally, I have often expressed the view that it is a rather bad principle putting down motions and then withdrawing them. Is the House agreed that leave be given to withdraw the motion?

Agreed.

Top
Share