I move the adjournment to Wednesday next.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - DISTRIBUTION OF LANDS IN CO. CORK.
Deputy Mullins has given notice that he would raise a question on the adjournment arising out of the answer given to Question No. 4 yesterday.
The question which I am obliged to raise to-day arises out of the unsatisfactory answer given to a question addressed by me to the Minister for Fisheries, first on the 23rd May, and secondly on the 7th June, with regard to the distribution of the lands of Inchedoney Island, County Cork. The Minister in his reply avoided the real issue, which was as to whether or not justice was to be done to the evicted tenants who had a clean, just and straight claim to these lands from which they or their predecessors were evicted in the olden times. The people concerned—Edward Nugent, Thomas Deasy, Mrs. Mary Mahony, Edward Arundel, Dennis Mahony and James O'Regan, of Clonakilty—or their predecessors, had been evicted by their landlord from their holdings on Inchedoney Island. The delay of the Land Commission in dealing with these cases during the last four years is certainly a disgrace to any public Department. We were led to expect when this Government came into power that the claims of these wounded soldiers of the land war would receive first consideration, and that justice would be done to those citizens. Preceding the revolutionary movement that gave rise to this Government in 1922 we were led to believe that the first claim to the attention of the Irish Government that was set up at that time would be those people who in days when it was not popular to do things sacrificed everything that the tradition of Irish independence might live.
When this Government had the chance to come to their assistance, when this administration had it in their power to relieve these people, this administration evaded the issue and replied to every advance made by those evicted tenants with quibbles and sneers. A red tape fashion is a mild way of describing the conduct of whoever is responsible for this discreditable transaction. I cannot call it anything else. It is red tape in order to facilitate the award of public property in the Island of Inchedoney to one who had no claim to it, and is inconveniencing and bluffing those who have genuine claims. I base the case I am about to make on the sworn testimony of one, Edward Nugent, of Clonakilty. He is a feeble old man, and in view of the fact that he may soon die the matter is urgent, and that is the reason that I have brought this matter to the notice of the Dáil, having regard to my experience in receiving unsatisfactory replics to a claim to justice on behalf of these people which I put through the form of questions. The facts of all the six cases are practically the same as those outlined in the sworn testimony which Edward Nugent made on 27th April, 1926. The claims of these evicted tenants were lodged with the evicted tenants branch of the Land Commission between June and December, 1924, with the exception of Dennis Mahony's claim which was lodged in January, 1925. Receipt of these applications was acknowledged by the Land Commission.
The circumstances of the case reveal as callous a story of neglect and indifference on the part of this administration as has been heard in this Dáil, or has happened in these Twenty-Six counties of what was once Ireland, since 1922, and a lot of things have happened. Edward Nugent, father of the man who claims the land, held 13 acres on the western side of Inchedoney Island from one Thomas Hungerford at the yearly rent of £20 1s. 0d. He was evicted in 1852 from his holding and house by Thomas Hungerford. Although he owed no rent he was evicted. Old Mr. Nugent was not present at the eviction, having been sent by the landlord on the day of the eviction on a message to one Captain Sandes, who was the father-in-law of Thomas Hungerford. On the evening of the day of the eviction Nugent found his family evicted from their home, and his furniture and goods on the foreshore floating in the sea. In consequence of this eviction, Nugent—the father of the present man—and his family were reduced to a state of starvation, and he took employment from the landlord, Thomas Hungerford, looking after his sheep at the remuneration of eightpence per day, without any perquisites. It is well to know that there was no question of arrears of rent being due to the landlord, and that the eviction was carried out as part of the settled policy of enlarging his farm on the Island. As a result of that eviction the lands of Richard Nugent and the other tenants who were evicted at that time were farmed by the landlord—Hungerford—together with his own farm, until 1866.
In 1866, Thomas Hungerford, the landlord, let to Patrick O'Donovan, of Killeagh, Rosscarbery, the lands occupied by one Timothy Deasy, who was also evicted by this same landlord from his holding on the Island, and other lands, making in all about 40 acres. These lands were farmed by Patrick O'Donovan and his son Michael until 1888, or thereabouts. When Patrick died, Michael voluntarily left the Island and went to reside at another farm which he possessed at Killeagh, Rosscarbery, which was his home and principal farm. In the answer which the Minister for Fisheries made on 23rd May it is stated that Patrick O'Donovan possessed no land. This Patrick O'Donovan, it will be noted, was never evicted from the Island, or anywhere else, no more than the Minister for Fisheries was ever evicted. Michael O'Donovan left this holding shortly afterwards, and about four years before he left the Island he put up for sale by public auction the holding he possessed, but no bid was made at the sale because, so far as we can understand, the land was poor and the rent was high, and he was desirous of getting out of that holding if he possibly could. After his departure from the Island the lands were farmed by Mary Hungerford. Patrick O'Donovan was the grandfather of Michael O'Donovan, who was the father of Deputy Timothy O'Donovan, West Cork.
In the year 1925 the Irish Land Commission acquired some land in the Inchedoney Island on the estate of Richard K. Donovan, and awarded something like 78 acres, 2 roods, and 20 perches to Michael Donovan, who was not an evicted tenant and who had no right to claim for land as an evicted tenant. The land awarded to him at that time has been farmed by Deputy Donovan since then, and he and his wife and family and Michael Donovan are residing there. Shortly after the Land Commission awarded this farm to Michael Donovan he sold his own farm at Killeagh, Rosscarbery, which he possessed beforehand, for a price exceeding £1,000. This will serve to give an idea of the value of the holding he possessed while at the same time he claimed land as an evicted tenant. Neither Edward Nugent nor any of the other evicted tenants has received any compensation whatsoever in respect of the land they lost at that time, although in 1924 the solicitor acting for Mr. Donovan offered one of the claimants, Timothy Deasy, a sum of £20 as compensation. It was refused. In other words, Mr. Donovan refused valuable compensation directly and indirectly by claiming land as an evicted tenant, whilst those who had genuine claims got nothing but dilly-dally and quibbles and being put off from time to time. These facts are indisputable, and they are based on an exhaustive examination of the whole question made not alone by local solicitors, but by me as a Deputy for the constituency, who was asked by his constituents to inquire into the claims of those six evicted tenants and endeavour to secure justice for them before it was too late.
Since 1924 this land and the Island mansion, which is the principal mansion in and around the Clonakilty area, have been worked by Mr. Donovan. This mansion with the land and out-offices is worth about £3,000. The evicted tenants got absolutely nothing. Some of them are down and out, and there does not seem to be very much sympathy for them. In 1924 all these evicted tenants applied to the Land Commission to be reinstated on the Island, having regard to the fact that their parents and grandparents had been evicted from their holdings there. Their claim for compensation, apart from the moral aspect of the question and their inherent right, is based on the Free State Land Act, 1923, Section 31 (f), which states inter alia:“Any other person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made. In selecting persons under this paragraph the Land Commission may have regard to the cases of persons who, or whose predecessors, have been evicted from their holdings in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of the landlord, and who are not included in paragraph (c) above.” Paragraph (c) states that “a person who within 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1923, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Purchase Acts apply, and who was evicted from that holding in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of his landlord, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative.”
Subsequently the solicitor acting on behalf of these six evicted tenants, Mr. Cullinane, of Clonakilty, entered into a protracted correspondence with the Irish Land Commission with a view to having his clients reinstated. But his efforts were futile. He did everything possible to secure justice for them, but failed. He called several times to the office of the Irish Land Commission, with no result. Afterwards, Mr. James Tanham, solicitor, Dublin, acting for Mr. Cullinane, took up the case and, on the 3rd November, 1927, entered into a long correspondence with the Land Commission. He sought an interview with the Minister or with the chief of the evicted tenants section of the Irish Land Commission. He was put off on several occasions and he was eventually refused. If I remember rightly, the Parliamentary Secretary in replying to my question with regard to the files yesterday informed me that no attempt was made by the solicitor to secure an interview. I have here the correspondence which goes to prove that an attempt was made to secure an interview, and that he received from the Irish Land Commission a reply that no useful purpose could be served by granting an interview in connection with the matter.
Very properly.
Mr. Tanham asked permission to inspect the files in these cases, in order to enable him to ascertain under what circumstances the distribution of the land on Inchedoney Island had been made, and to see if possible whether the claims of the evicted tenants should be granted. He was refused access to the files on the grounds that they were of a secret nature. If there was nothing shady in the transaction, there was no reason in the world, in view of the dissatisfaction that exists in Clonakilty as a result of this distribution, why access should not be given to the solicitor to ascertain on what ground the land was awarded to one whose claim as an evicted tenant was bogus. On the 20th December, 1927, the following letter was received from the Secretary to the Minister:—
A Chairde,
Re INCHEDONEY ISLAND.
With reference to previous correspondence relative to the application of certain persons for reinstatement in lands at Inchedoney Island, Clonakilty, County Cork, I am directed by Mr. Lynch to send you the attached copy of a communication on the subject received by him from the Irish Land Commission.
On the 15th December, the following letter was received from the Minister for Fisheries:—
With reference to your Minute of the 11th ultimo, addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, enclosing a letter addressed to you by Messrs. J. H. McLoughlin & Son, Solicitors, 18 College Green, Dublin, on the subject of applications made to the Land Commission by Edward Nugent, James O'Regan, Mary Mahony, Thomas Deasy, Denis Mahony and Edward and Mary Arundel for reinstatement in lands at Inchedoney Island, Clonakilty, County Cork, the Land Commission have already considered these applications which relate to evictions in 1852 or thereabouts, and have decided not to take any action in reference thereto.
The Commissioners acquired under the Act of 1923, about 126 acres of this island, and divided it between two evicted tenants, Michael Donovan and Daniel Hayes.
Now, the general feeling down the country about these transactions is that favour was shown in the distribution of the land, and that the evicted tenants' claims were not dealt with in a just and a fair manner, particularly in view of the fact that Michael Donovan, who was awarded the land, was not an evicted tenant. As the records go to prove, he voluntarily left his holding on the island for personal reasons known to himself, and the parents and grand-parents of these men whose cases I put before the Minister were evicted tenants with a just and a legal claim. I raise this question to-day for the sole purpose of demanding a complete and thorough investigation to be held into the distribution of this land, so that justice may be done to those people who in those days made it possible to establish even this little bit of freedom we have.
rose.
Before Deputy Wolfe speaks I would remind him that the Parliamentary Secretary will want to get some time to reply.
I only wanted to draw attention to one or two facts. I am speaking merely because this particular holding is one situated in my constituency and quite close to the homes of very near relatives of mine. I have, therefore, personal knowledge of the facts which I am about to state.
Is not this totally out of order?
Mr. HOGAN
Not at all.
Shut up.
Any Deputy in the House who wishes to speak upon the matter can speak within the time allowed.
They do not want to hear the reply.
Having heard what Deputy Mullins has said at an expenditure of twenty minutes of time, I would suggest that this House should not be made the medium of ventilating local spleen. That is the only object that this adjournment debate has.
Excuse me——
Mr. WOLFE
It can have no other object, because what the Deputy stated is to my own knowledge a direct contradiction of the facts. I cannot promise, as he did, to take my memory back to 1852, but I can take it back, so far as this particular district is concerned and in which I spent a good portion of my childhood, to 1886, when this gentleman to whom the Deputy referred was evicted out of his holding on the island. Mr. Donovan was evicted to the knowledge of everybody in the district, and the story that has been told here was concocted by a disgruntled old maid in order to throw disrepute upon the memory of this man and his family, who are as well known as any other family in West Cork. Deputy Mullins thought it necessary to refer to Mr. Donovan's connection with an honoured and respected Deputy of this House. I want to say this much, that I know him probably all my lifetime, and the Deputy in this House ought to be proud of his connection with Michael Donovan, than whom no more honoured name can be found in West Cork. I would like to tell Deputy Mullins this, that when he tells us of his personal knowledge of this thing, that statement is directly contrary to facts.
The Deputy is quite wrong.
I would like to tell the Deputy that this claim of Michael Donovan's was investigated in 1903 following the passing of the 1903 Act. Immediately on the passing of the Act that claim was made. That is to say, that claim was made 25 years ago and was fully investigated by the Land Commission and, after investigation, was passed. The man that the Deputy complains has got undue preference in this land, had his claim that he made 25 years ago proved over 20 years ago by the Estates Commissioners. He has proved his claim, and whether that is on the file or not, I do not know. I hope that under no circumstances whatever will we in this House ever again hear the suggestion made by a Deputy who ought to have some sense of responsibility and honour, that the files of public documents should be left open for inspection by the public.
Before Deputy Roddy replies——
You will have to give him time to reply.
The only reason I brought this claim up in the House was in the interests of constituents who asked me to bring it and, if Deputy Wolfe thinks there is any personal spleen in the matter, he is mistaken.
Mr. WOLFE
We know too well there is. It is the old maid who is at the bottom of it.
No Deputy of the House has a right to insult a lady.
I am afraid Deputy Mullins did not take much pains to investigate the real facts of this case. If he did, he would not have made some of the very foolish statements he has just made. I have absolutely irrefutable evidence in the Land Commission to show that Michael Donovan is an evicted tenant, evicted in 1886 for non-payment of rent. He lodged a claim for land with the Estates Commissioners in 1904, and the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission decided that his claim was a just claim, and that he was entitled to get a holding on Inchedoney Island. Correspondence in this case has been going on since 1904. A number of influential people who were interested in this case in the neighbourhood where Mr. Donovan lived wrote to the Irish Land Commission on the matter. Quite a number of questions were asked and answered in connection with this case in the British House of Commons, and the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission were so impressed with the justice of this case that they decided that directly these lands would be acquired they would give Mr. Donovan a holding on the Hungerford Estate. With regard to the parties in whom Deputy Mullins is interested, I find that all these people are living in the town of Clonakilty. Their ancestors were evicted prior to the year 1864. In the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, an Act specially framed for the purpose of dealing with this class of people, it is clearly stated that no application that was not received prior to the 1st June, 1907, would be considered. Yet these people, who were the representatives of evicted tenants, and who should have lodged claims, never lodged claims prior to 1st June, 1907. The only two claims that were lodged prior to 1st June, 1907, were the claims of Mr. Hayes and of Mr. Donovan. Those people were surely aware that they were representatives of evicted tenants, but they lodged no claims, and by a strange coincidence their claims to be treated as representatives of evicted tenants were not lodged until 1924 and 1925, when the scheme for the distribution of the land had been actually prepared and ready to be put into effect. Who are those people who are claiming now as the representatives of evicted tenants? These six people are living in the town of Clonakilty, and at least four of them have no experience whatsoever of farming. Yet, presumably it is the Deputy's suggestion that the State should advance to these people, who have no experience of farming and no experience of the management of land, large sums of money for the purpose of buying land.
Compensation.
These things are dealt in accordance with legislation passed by the Dáil. The Land Commission must act in accordance with that legislation. Presumably it is the suggestion of the Deputy that the State should advance these people large sums of money for the purpose of buying land —people who have absolutely no experience whatever of farming. That is the Deputy's suggestion.
What about compensating them?
They are outside the scope of the Land Acts. It was never the practice of the Estates Commissioners or the Land Commission to give land to persons who were evicted before 1878. As the Deputy knows, if you go back beyond 1878 you will not only have to deal with one evicted tenant in respect of a particular holding, but you will have to deal probably with half-a-dozen evicted tenants in respect of that holding. It was never the practice to go back beyond 1878. But as a matter of fact, an exception was made in this case because of a particular sub-section in the Act of 1923. As a result, these cases were investigated and inspected by the Land Commission, who decided that these people were not suitable applicants for lands and that they should not get land. I am perfectly satisfied, and I am sure that every fair-minded Deputy is satisfied that they are not people who should get land. In fact, the putting into effect of the Inchedoney scheme was actually held up by the Land Commission in order to investigate these cases.
What about compensating them?
As to the justice of these particular cases, I will say that Donovan's case is an historical one. I think everybody in the neighbourhood is aware of the fact that Donovan's eviction was undoubtedly a case of great hardship, and the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission were so satisfied that they recommended that Donovan's case was one for reinstatement and that he should get a farm. At the time that Mr. Donovan got this farm he was not in possession of any other farm. He was an evicted tenant, and consequently, according to the Land Act, he was entitled to a holding, and he got it.
Where is the farm he sold?
Mr. WOLFE
Kinsale.
He had not it to sell.
I think it is perfectly clear that this case has been dealt with in an absolutely fair and just way. There was absolutely no influence brought to bear on the Land Commission. It was dealt with on the merits, and it was on the merits that Mr. Donovan got the holding that he was entitled to. Every Deputy must recognise that Mr. Donovan was entitled to get it.
It being now 2.30 p.m. the House adjourned until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 13th June.