The matter which I have given notice to raise on the adjournment concerns the estate on a property formerly owned by Miss Butler, at Drumullan, Fenloe. My grumble against the Land Commission is mainly because of the inequitable distribution of the estate. That is what I base my representations to the Land Commission on. I will just give one or two details as to why I concluded that the estate was inequitably divided. My information is to the effect that an old lady of 71 years of age, having at the moment 20 acres set, got another holding of about 20 acres. The argument put up to me was to the effect that she had a nephew. It occurred to me to inquire where the nephew was or if the Land Commission supplied nephews as well as land, because if she had a nephew it was strange that he would not work the 20 acres, but waited until he had 40 acres to work. There is another case of a man with 50 acres who got 40 acres additional.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ADJOURNMENT DEBATE—DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN CLARE.
What is the name?
Mr. P. HOGAN
I think the name is O'Brien, but I am not sure. I ask the Minister not to ask me to give names. I will give particulars, and I think they will be found to be correct. This man got 90 acres. I raised the matter sufficiently early with the Land Commission to give them an opportunity of dealing with it. I know that the Land Commission has to decide who is and who is not to get land. I do not dispute that that is their function, but I do grumble that so far back as November, 1923, I brought the matter to the attention of the Commission. That is with regard to the division of the lands and I had communications on the 9th December, 1925, the 1st March, 1926, and 1st April, 1926. In the last paragraph of the last letter the Commissioners say that when the Inspector, who is to make inquiries reports to them they will write to me again. It was an Inspector named Thompson who made the original scheme of distribution, and when the case to which I refer was brought to my notice I objected to the scheme and asked to have a senior Inspector sent down to review the scheme made by Mr. Thompson. The Land Commission promised that such an Inspector would be sent, but as a matter of fact no such Inspector was sent. Mr. Thompson in fact was sent to review his own scheme. I do not consider that a proper way to do business. The Inspector who prepared the scheme went about among the people using threats. He told them that if they did not accept the land they would get none of it if there was a re-distribution. The point I want to emphasise is that the majority of the people who have got the division of this land are prepared to accept the re-distribution in order to allow everybody to be satisfied. It is a matter of some concern and what is generally believed there is that it is the sole survivor of the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation there who is responsible for the distribution of this land. Although the peace of the district is important, I think that justice for these men is much more important, and so far as I am concerned I am prepared to consider that justice for these men is more important than the peace of the district, and the peace of the district is in danger if some re-consideration of the matter is not given. Re-consideration and re-examination of the matter will, I think, provide the Minister with sufficient information so that the matter can be amicably settled.
I wish to support Deputy Hogan's statement, especially as to the complaints that have arisen that unless one becomes a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal one will have no claim as regards the distribution of lands. The Minister may say that we have no proof. I have already given proof to the Land Commission and have given the name of the Secretary of the organisation in West Wicklow who said that unless people join the local branch their claims for land will not be considered. It was only claims of the members of that organisation that were considered.
This is an estate in Clare.
This is an estate in Wicklow, and I have taken the opportunity of bringing the matter before the Minister to show that men who are entitled to the land did not receive it because they were not members of the Minister's organisation.
Personally I would be glad if Deputies would take occasion to raise in the Dáil questions such as this, as it really is the only way in which you could get an idea of the difficulties of the Land Commission in dealing with land purchase. I am sorry that Deputy Everett did not take an earlier opportunity of raising that matter.
If the Minister doubts my statement he can ask my colleague, Deputy C. Byrne, who will verify it.
I am sorry that the Deputy did not take an earlier occasion [Minister for Lands and Agriculture.] to raise that question in the Dáil when we would have an opportunity of examining it and of seeing who did and who did not get the land. That is the only way of deciding those questions. There are, at least, at present five parties in the House, and if land were divided you would have complaints from each of the five that the other people got the land. That is my experience, and it is inevitable, however you may look on it. There is only one way to settle this matter and that is, wherever a Deputy finds a case where a ranch is divided, and where influence is used in the division, I invite that Deputy to raise the matter here in the Dáil, and it will in that way help me to face the critics of the Land Commission here.
I have been faced with general statements, both on the Estimates and on Land Bills, such as Deputy Everett made here now. I am powerless. I know the intense interest that is taken in the division of land. I come from the country and I know there are always to be found there a large number of people who are disappointed. When people with good claims are left out, there are bound to be wild statements. The Land Commission is not getting fair play, because I have seldom personally investigated a case in which I did not find there was nothing in the complaints made. I invite Deputy Everett to raise that matter. He stated that only members of a certain organisation would get land. There is nothing like circumstantial evidence. I suppose he will agree with me that people belonging to the Labour Party, or to the Farmers' Party, will say the same, but circumstantial evidence is the thing, and when I say circumstantial evidence I mean an examination of the person who got the land and of the person who claimed, but who did not get, the land. I invite that.
Take this case. This estate consists of 264 statute acres, that is 200 Irish acres; that is to say, it would be for nine or ten people. You would put nine or ten holdings on it. I suppose there were, at least, thirty applicants for nine possible holdings in Clare, where people know what they want and where they occasionally go short ways about getting it.
The Minister himself is not far from Clare, so he should not throw stones. Does he mean nine original holdings, or does he mean nine like that of the man who had forty acres and then got another fifty?
Here is a case of an estate of 200 Irish acres. That would give nine or ten holdings at the outside. You can take it for granted that on a farm like that there is a considerable tail of bad land. It was purchased in 1923 for a reasonable price. Possession was taken on 26th March last and the allottees were put in on the following day. The lands were divided as follows:—A holding comprising 51a. Or. 12p. was given to Mrs. Bridget Murphy (widow), whose husband had been evicted in 1880 from his holding on the lands of Shandangan; 27a. 3r. 12p. were given to the former herd, while the remainder of the lands, containing 185a. 1r. 39p., provided enlargements for seven small holders, none of whose poor law valuation exceeded £10. Is that a fair division? There was one holding made for an evicted tenant. There was a holding given to the herd, and the rest of the estate was divided amongst seven small holders, none of whose valuation was over £10.
Let us come to the specific case the Deputy mentioned. There are only 21 acres undivided. That land was offered to a man called O'Brien who refused it. Miss Butler, who is 70 years of age, got 25 acres, the valuation of which was £1 1s. 6d. She already holds about 18 acres. Seeing that the poor law valuation of that was £9 15s. 0d., she has now a holding of £19, which is a fair economic one. She practically adjoins the Butler estate and she has only a life interest in her holding. Therefore, there must have been a deed of some kind by which, after her death, the land is to go to John Tierney, a member of the family of six sons and six daughters. The inspector went to that estate and found the old woman living on an uneconomic holding. On making further inquiries, he found that she had only a life interest and that after her death the holding was to become the holding of John Tierney, a nephew. No inspector doing his duty would do otherwise than give her sufficient land so as to make her holding economic. That is what he did. The Land Commission must look at it partly from the point of view of the tenant in possession and also from the point of view that there was an uneconomic holding held by an unmarried woman and that after her death some other person is going to come into that either by purchase or some other way, and there will be left an uneconomic holding there. Their duty is not so much to consider the question when dealing with congests. They have to give that a certain weight. There would be cases where they would refuse for personal reasons to go even into an uneconomic holding. This matter was clinched in this way, when it was found that the tenant, Miss Butler, had a life interest only and that one John Tierney living close by who belongs to the family was the remainder man in question.
Does the Minister suggest that it is good policy to hold up the distribution of that land until that old lady dies, in a district where there are other people prepared to work it?
These are the considerations, rightly or wrongly, which the inspector took into account. In two or three years, John Tierney, who is now a boy of eighteen, will be in a position to work the land, together with this 25 acres which is to go into this holding, which was uneconomic and which actually adjoins the estate. I can imagine the Deputy making a very good case in regard to another estate in respect of a similar young man. I make no defence for what was done in this case. It is what any sensible inspector would have done in the circumstances—to give a holding to the herd and to give the rest of the land, with the possible exception of one holding—I am not quite clear on that from the file before me—to the congests adjoining under £10 valuation. Who were the men looking for it? Eight or ten landless men. I stated here that we would do our very best in the Land Commission to see that the maximum number of congests and the minimum number of landless men would be dealt with. I think I indicated that it would be extremely difficult to do that without the good-will and active co-operation of every party. I indicated that it would be a difficult operation. It will be.
A question has arisen about the Pollock estate in my own county and I have been invited, on behalf of the landless men, to attend a meeting there to protest against the bringing in of congests. That is going to start all over the country unless we set our jaws quite firmly against it and make the country understand that we are dealing with congests first. That is not a popular thing for me to say. It is not a popular thing for the Land Commission to do. It would be easier for the Land Commission to go into a district, divide an estate, make friends with the people there, including, if you like, a few super-landless men and dispose of the land in that way. There would be far less questions raised if that were done. But that would not be fair and it would not be sound policy. We shall have to try and stand up to any odium that we may incur by reason of taking in congests instead of landless men to estates which are being divided. That is, undoubtedly, the sound policy.
The Deputy may assert that practically all these people would be willing to see the lands re-divided. Fancy 185 acres of poorish land divided between six or seven congests under £10 valuation ! I suppose they would get about 20 acres each, if they got so much. I am told they would be willing to see the inspector come down and re-distribute the lands. In fact, they are burning with anxiety to give some of it up, although, I venture to say, the average holding would not be more than £16 or £18 valuation. I am asked to have an Inspector sent down. It is said that Mr. Thompson, one inspector, has been on the lands, but that no other Inspector visited them. I have on the file a report not only from Mr. Thompson, but also from the Senior Inspector for Clare.
The Senior Inspector never went on the lands.
Here is the file. On it I have the names of every applicant, with particulars of their conditions. That is common cause. I have the names of all the people, and I have a report from the Senior Inspector. Whether he went on the lands or not, there is no question as to the facts or as to his ability to make up his mind on the problem on the information he could get from Mr. Thompson. I do not know whether he went on the lands or not, but whether he did or not, I see no reason for altering Mr. Thompson's distribution.
The Deputy very naively suggested that they are all itching to give this land up. I venture to say they are not so anxious as all that. I think there have been some shots fired in connection with this estate. There has been very considerable confusion and there has been intimidation of these particular allottees, and I can imagine Mr. O'Brien, who refused his allotment—he was a congest, I believe—saying that Mr. Thompson had said to him: "Well, refuse it, and you will not get a second chance." Honestly, if I were in Mr. Thompson's place, I would say the same thing. Put yourself in Mr. Thompson's place. He went down there to do the right thing, obviously against the wishes of the landless men. He found a considerable amount of intimidation. No doubt, there has been gross intimidation. It came to firing shots and interfering with fences and so on. He tried to distribute the lands rightly amongst the congests. He found, I am sure, some of the congests a bit nervous. I can see the whole picture down there. He said: "You are entitled to a certain amount of land. You can refuse it if you like, but if you refuse it you will not get a second chance." That is what I would say myself. I am sure that that is what happened. Why should I ask another Inspector to go down there? These people have been in possession of the land for a couple of months. They are being blackguarded and intimidated to some extent. They hold possession, and they are entitled to hold possession. Why should I re-open the whole thing again? I do not want even to give the impression that we will re-open it. We are going to stand over this scheme. The Land Commission is not going to be intimidated into giving land to people who are not entitled to it by methods which, I am sure, the Deputy does not know very much about.
What would happen if I sent an Inspector down there? The fat would be in the fire again. They would say we were changing our minds. We are not changing our minds. These people are entitled to the land, and they should get it. The Land Commission would be badly advised and would be setting a bad precedent for the distribution of further lands in Clare if they yielded on this question. I really could not agree to that course. Let the Deputy show me a single case in which a person got land who should not have got it. He mentioned the case of Mrs. Butler. I think there were good reasons in that case. There is room for honest differences of opinion in regard to Mrs. Butler's case, but I genuinely agree with the inspector's point of view.
The Minister has stated that he is going to cater for the congests before the landless men and that the Senior Inspector is capable of making up his mind on the question. How can the Senior Inspector distinguish if he does not go on the lands, make investigations and interview the people concerned? Does the Minister say that the other eight or nine men are all landless men? If that is so, where did this Inspector, who made the report, get the information if he did not go on the lands? That brings you back to the point that Inspectors from the Land Commission very often get their information not from the people generally in a district but from some particular person or persons in a district. They go for their information to these persons, and, in this particular instance, that is the case. The Minister said that it would be weakness on the part of the Commission to go back on their decision. The Commission had full information as to what they were about to do long before they sanctioned the scheme.
They did it in the light of that. I have the file before me with the names of the people who applied. Mr. Thompson got the names. It is easy to get the names because they all apply. He states their circumstances. I will make a few quotations from the file as samples and to show how full the information that we have got is.
John O'Grady—ex-soldier National Army, age 29, married, two children; stock: one cow, two calves, four yearlings; holds house and three acres as sub-tenant on a farm recently acquired by a man named O'Connell, of which no particulars of tenure were available.
Patrick Cox,—Aged 35, unmarried, has labourer's cottage and plot only; works as labourer.
John King,—Aged 45, married, has labourer's cottage and plot and 1 acre, purchased through the I.L.C.; is in employment of a man named Hewitt as herd.
I have a long list of these applicants, with every detail in connection with every applicant. When an applicant applies, the Inspector goes to him and finds out his circumstances. One thing an Inspector can be sure of is that everybody who has the slightest claim to land will apply. To start with, he has got all the names. He can go round then and find out personally the circumstances of each person. That is what is always done.
You would need to work overtime to convince the people of that.
There is nothing like circumstantial evidence in a case like this. These cases are always highly contentious and you always have different people believing that they are badly treated because you cannot put a quart into a pint bottle. Can the Deputy show me anything which would justify me in re-opening this case?
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 12 noon on Friday, 18th June.