Yesterday I addressed the following question to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries:
To ask the Minister for Lands and Fisheries whether several inspectors visited and inspected and reported in favour of the acquisition of the holding of Mr. John Mansfield, on the estate of William Hopkins, Lyrogue, Co. Leix (Record No. S/2406), where Mr. Mansfield resides, and if he will state what other land he owns or occupies; whether the Commissioners have already decided to acquire these lands and disallowed the objection lodged by Mr. Mansfield; whether he can state the cause of the delay on the part of the Commissioners in dealing with these lands; whether a division scheme has so far been prepared by the Commissioners; and, if so, when same is likely to be put into operation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister replied as follows:
The Land Commission proposed to resume the holding in question and served notice on the tenant of their intention to apply to the Judicial Commission for an order authorising resumption of the holding. The tenant objected and his objection was heard by the Land Commission in court and allowed, and accordingly, the proceedings for resumption came to an end. Mr. Mansfield lives in Co. Kerry. He is tenant of holdings of 44 acres on the estate of A. V. Carden and 34 acres on the estate of Ellen Wilson, both of which are pending for sale under the Act of 1923. He is also the registered owner of a holding of 4 acres.
I considered this reply unsatisfactory, because I have been in communication for a considerable period with the Land Commission and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. As a result of a communication addressed to the then Minister for Lands and Agriculture, I received a reply to a very definite question regarding these lands. I got the reply in April, 1927. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary told me that the objection lodged by the owner was allowed, whereas on the 22nd April, 1927, the then Minister for Lands and Agriculture sent this reply to me: "This holding will be retained by the Land Commission under the provisions of Section 28 (6) and an objection by the tenant was disallowed by the Land Commission." I consider these replies contradictory and conflicting. To me, at any rate, they are inexplicable. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the conflicting nature of the Minister's reply with the statement made to me yesterday.
The lands in this case have been the subject of considerable agitation extending over a period of at least ten years. This holding is one of two holdings on the estate of William Hopkins, Lyrogue. There is another holding on the same estate at present occupied by a Mr. Thompson. In the same area there was other untenanted land in the name of Mr. John Duigan, but it has since been acquired and divided. I understand that the intention of the Land Act of 1923 was to acquire untenanted land in any area where the Commissioners or their advisers were satisfied acute congestion existed. The Land Commission inspectors—I do not know how many of them, but the Parliamentary Secretary, if he so desires, can give us the number of occasions when they visited these areas—inspected the lands one after the other. They visited the lands occupied by Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Duigan. As far as I know, they reported in favour of the acquisition of the lands for the purpose of relieving congestion.
During the Sinn Féin agitation a number of local people were arrested and charged in the local courts. As a result of the unrest a Dáil Land Commission Judge, now functioning as a Land Commissioner under the Free State, visited the district, and after hearing the case on behalf of the people looking for the land and, I assume, after hearing the other side of the case, he decided that the land should be acquired for the relief of congestion. The individuals who were looking for a division of the land put the case in the hands of a solicitor. I believe all the documents and all the arguments that could be put forward on behalf of the people looking for the land are on the files of the Land Commission. After the ordinary inspectors had made enquiries from the large number of uneconomic holders, the chief resident inspector, at the request of the Commissioners, visited the area. I was informed by that gentleman that the Commissioners intended to acquire the land. This is also clearly indicated in the letter that I have quoted.
I understand that in cases of acquisition the owner has the right to object only on one occasion against the lands being acquired. He did object and the objection was disallowed so far as the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is concerned, but allowed so far as the Parliamentary Secretary's reply is concerned. I have been watching this case very closely. I was born and reared in the parish where these untenanted lands are.
The real reason why I have decided to follow up this case is this. Certain very influential friends of the landowners concerned have boasted on more than one occasion that they would upset the desires of the Land Commission and would see to it—so far as I can now see they have succeeded—that the intentions of the Commissioners would not be carried out in regard to the acquisition of these lands. The landowners concerned in this and in other cases have stated repeatedly and openly in the parish and surrounding districts that a certain very influential organisation, which has its headquarters not very far from where we are sitting, was taking a deep interest in the welfare of the landowners concerned and would use all its influence in seeing that the desires of the Land Commission were upset. In the case of Miss Winters, which I previously referred to, in the same parish the Commissioners also decided to acquire the land. An objection was lodged and was disallowed but for some reason which I cannot understand another objection was allowed to be lodged and on the second occasion it was allowed. The same thing occurred in Mr. Mansfield's case and, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, a Deputy who takes a keen interest in another case in the same area boasted that he would see that the lands were left with the owner, notwithstanding the fact that he has two other farms in addition. I was not inclined originally to pay much attention to the statement made in some parts of the country regarding the influence of this international organisation, but from what I can see, the landowners have considerable influence in regard to questions of this kind. I can only conclude, so far as this and other cases are concerned, that their influence has been very effective and has been the cause of preventing the Commissioners from acquiring the land which in the ordinary course should be acquired for the relief of congestion in the area.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, regard it as his duty to refute any allegations of that kind. I raised the question in order that he may have an opportunity of giving the House and the people concerned in cases of this kind the real reasons why the land was not acquired as originally intended. I want to know whether the files disclose the number of uneconomic holders under £10 valuation in the townlands of Barraghaum, Lyrogue, Coolnagown, Harristown and Baurivina, which are within two miles radius of the lands referred to. That information, I believe, is on the files; at least, it should be if the inspectors did their duty, as I presume they did, when reporting. Therefore the number of uneconomic holders with a valuation of under £10 in that area must be on the files and should be given to the House. If the number is too small to decide in favour of the acquisition of the land I am prepared to listen to reason. I know the area and the number of uneconomic holders that reside within two miles of the lands referred to, and I know that they are all hardworking, industrious people who would greatly benefit by additions to their uneconomic holdings. If the Act is to be administered in the spirit in which it was introduced and passed, when sponsored by the Minister for Agriculture, I say that there is a good case for the acquisition of these lands. At any rate, I raised the matter because I regard the reply given to me yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary as extremely unsatisfactory and contradictory. On that question I should say that about three months ago a gentleman who is a great friend of the landowner referred to—Mr. Mansfield—stated emphatically, on an authority that I cannot put my finger on, that the lands of Mr. Mansfield would not be acquired, and that he knew that well, and also that the same influence which prevented the lands of Miss Winters from being acquired would also succeed in this case.
I want to know the date the Commissioners allowed the objection when it was heard a second time. That would give me a clue as to whether information of a confidential nature can get into the hands of landowners before it can get into those of Deputies. I have already drawn attention to the fact that information which should be in the hands of Deputies before it gets to localities in the country leaks out. I will give this piece of advice to the Parliamentary Secretary: pull down the blinds of the Land Commission and tell the people of the country in a straightforward way that you do not intend to pursue the operations of the Act of 1923 any further. That may, perhaps, serve a useful purpose. It may give the Land Commission an opportunity of overhauling the Commission as a whole, and of preventing cases of the kind mentioned by Deputy Boland from cropping up again. That is a case which shows that there is a state of disorganisation in that Department. At any rate, be honest with the people and tell them the reasons for holding up the operations of the Act. If you are standing for impartial administration I say that it is your duty to prevent influential friends of landowners of the type referred to from interfering with the impartial administration of the Act.
