This Supplementary Estimate for the Circuit Court involves a reference to Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933. The discussion should be confined to the administration of the section concerned. The Act itself may not be debated, nor its merits canvassed, since it is an Act of the Oireachtas. Neither may the general condition of the agricultural community be dwelt upon at length. That question has been discussed on several motions.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 38—Circuit Court.
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Liúntaisí agus Costaisí Oifigeach Cúirte Cuarda, Leas-Bhreithiún gCuarda agus Udarásanna Clárathachta Aitiúla áirithe agus chun costaisí Athfhéachainte Liostaí Vótálaithe agus Coisteoirí (Uimh. 27 de 1926, etc.)
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the Salaries, Allowances and Expenses of Circuit Court Officers, Deputy Circuit Judges and certain Local Registering Authorities; and the Expenses of Revision of Voters' and Jurors' Lists (No. 27 of 1926, etc.)—(Minister for Justice).
The economic war will not arise, I hope?
It is to be hoped not.
I had no intention of discussing whether what purports to be an Act of this House is or is not an Act.
I trust the Deputy does not take the remarks of the Chair as directed to him personally.
Not in the slightest. I am aware that I kept well within the bounds of order last evening and it would not strike me that the remarks of the Chair had any personal reference whatever. Personally, I had no intention of discussing that particular point as to whether the instrument on which the Government propose to operate is an Act, or whether a certain section is or is not ultra vires. That has nothing to do with anything I have to say. I do suggest, however, that there are other methods open to the Government of collecting the arrears of land annuities. There is a choice that the Government could make as to the method they should adopt. I think that I am within my rights in discussing whether or not this is the proper method.
There are other methods of collecting the land annuities besides that given to the Government in Section 28 of the Act of 1933. My argument is that in the present conditions the Government ought not to exercise their discretion to use Section 28 of that Land Act; but, if they have recourse to any measures to recover annuities, they should have recourse to the other methods. These other methods of collecting the land annuities have not been repealed. Not merely have they not been repealed, but the particular section to which reference is made here distinctly states that any power given to the Land Commission under this section is not in abrogation of the powers they already have. My contention is that in the present conditions they should not use the additional powers given in Section 28. Indeed, I hold they should not use any powers to collect at all, but if they are determined to use any of these measures they should use the other powers. I submit that I am fully within the rules of order in debating that particular question.
From interruptions we heard last evening, I gather that the Government are taking up the line that the farmers are able to pay. If that is the real belief of the Government, why do they not use the other method that is open to them? If they believe that the farmers are able to pay, why do they not let the cases come before the Courts in the ordinary way, so that the annuitant may put forward a case that he is not in a position to pay, and that he should not be asked to pay at the particular moment? The Government have deliberately deprived him of the opportunity of doing that. The Government should exercise their discretion. There are two types of discretion that the Government could exercise in this particular matter. On the one hand they could utilise, if they were determined to proceed at all, other methods which they have at their disposal and other means which were not repealed by the Land Act of 1933. They could give an annuitant an opportunity of putting up the case that at the moment he is not in a position to pay and that he should not be asked to pay. Secondly, they could exercise their discretion that in the present condition of affairs they should not pursue any powers of so called collection.
We are voting money to enable the Government to carry out a collection of land annuities. I hold that on two grounds the House should not vote that money—firstly, because, in present conditions, the Government ought not to drive the country to despair in their effort to collect these annuities, and secondly, if they think there are cases where these men can pay, they should at least give an opportunity to the ordinary farmer of putting up his case, or should at least afford an opportunity of a stay being put on the proceedings. The Government as an act of administration is determined to choose one course rather than the other or rather than no course at all. I think the proper course in present conditions is to forbear collection of these annuities. If the Government is determined to break, not the big farmer, but the independence of the farmers generally in this country I can see no better method they could adopt than the method they are adopting at the present. I am not referring to big farmers. First of all, there is hardly any such thing as a big farmer in my own constituency. When I speak of independent farmers, I am referring quite as much to the ordinary small farmer who has a little holding in the valleys or the mountainsides of Kerry as I am to the farmer with, say, fifty acres of rich land.
Ministers interrupted several times and they spoke of these people having deposit receipts. That apparently is the excuse for the proceedings—because an unfortunate farmer here and there had been thrifty enough to put by a few pounds during the prosperous years before the Government took over what the Minister for Industry and Commerce humorously describes as the reorganisation of the industry. In the fortunate years before the Government took over that particular reorganisation, undoubtedly there were a number of very small farmers in the country, who had been able to put by a few pounds. Now, under this proceedure, we are apparently to pass money to enable the Government to strip these unfortunate men of every penny they have been able to put by as the result of their hard work in the past. That method is wrong and that object is wrong and for that reason I strongly hold that the House should not pass this particular Vote, and that it should give voice to its condemnation of the administrative methods of the Government in this particular matter.
The Government have had an opportunity to realise the conditions but they have failed to do so. Without any chance of defending himself, an unfortunate man whose industry has been reduced to beggary by the policy of the Government is to have Government agents sent in upon him and, in addition, he is to be saddled with costs. I am not going into the question of the legality of that particular matter but one of the matters which I gathered from the reply of the Minister last night was that part of this Vote is connected with costs upon warrants, or what were called Court Orders. I understand he means warrants. That is what we are asked to approve of at the present time, additional costs. The Minister may say that if they had recourse to the courts, it would involve more costs but, at any rate, in that case the individual would have the choice of paying up, or, if he thought he had a case, of going before the justice. The justice, even if he had to give a decision against the unfortunate annuitant, might give him a very long time during which payment might be made.
There is a reference to my native county in this Vote. Last night the Minister for Finance interrupted, as if the only people that were affected by this liability to pay were rich people. That is not so. The Minister in introducing this Estimate gave absolutely no indication of the number of warrants that are in the hands either of the sheriffs or of the registrars at the present moment. Surely that was relevant information so far as this Vote is concerned. How did the Minister arrive at the Appropriation-in-Aid? He must have had some idea of the number of warrants that are in the hands of registrars and of the sheriffs at the present moment. I hold that that was pertinent information, extremely relevant to this question, which the Minister should have given us and which he refrained from giving. Are there 50,000 or 100,000? How many warrants are expected to be in the hands of the registrars and sheriffs?
If there is such a large number as 50,000 or 100,000 is the suggestion that these persons are made up of the so-called rich farmers, if there are any left in the country, or even of the moderately rich farmers? It is quite obvious that they embrace the very poorest farmers living in the poorest land in the country. How can they be expected to meet the demand which the Minister is pressing upon them and which the House is now asked to give him power to press upon them? His colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, last week, made it quite clear that there is a very numerous class of farmers in Kerry, not the rich farmers with 100 or 200 acres each—they do not exist there— but the mountainside farmers. He said their land could produce nothing else except a certain type of cattle, the small Kerry cattle. He admits that there is no price for these at the present time. Yet that is the whole industry of these people. The Minister bought a few Kerry cattle at 22/- per cwt. and sold them at 12/-. He deliberately did that in a few cases as an experiment merely to see whether there was any hope of saving these unfortunate people. Yet we are asked to give complete power into the hands of the Minister and his officials to issue warrants against these people and other people like them.
The House ought to be very slow to do anything of the kind, they ought to have no hesitation in refusing to do anything of the kind, because, what is to be the attitude of that particular little farmer in Kerry when he is faced with the necessity of paying these annuities? Admittedly, his industry has been destroyed. Admittedly, all that he can hope for is a chance that a certain experiment of the Minister's may succeed and that the Minister in future may be good enough to give him 22/- per cwt. for an odd beast and sell it to a meat factory at 12/-. In other words, he will have to subsidise them because the industry has been made permanently uneconomic. No hope has this man when he is faced with this warrant. Not merely is the present bad, but the serious thing is that there is no hope for the future. And, if a few of these very hard-working and thrifty people have been able to put by a pound or two in the past, they should not be made liable to the sneers of the Minister for Finance because some of them happen to have deposit receipts. Many a farmer has had deposit receipts. There are farmers all over the country who have deposit receipts. If a farmer has a deposit receipt, he got it by hard work. If he has a deposit receipt, it is because he was able to get a few pounds together when times were better and at a time before the famous reorganisation of farming by the Government was undertaken.
What are that farmer's prospects at the present moment? He sees that money, that he has put aside pound by pound, simply being taken away and swept away from him by the Government. Mind you, it is not merely that this year he will have to pay out and make good losses which his industry can no longer bear—losses which the Minister admits the industry will no longer bear—but next year he is faced with the prospect of having to do the same, and that year after year he will have to do the same until the little savings he has put by for his family have all vanished, and then, when they have vanished, still no improvement in sight. The Minister admits, in these particular cases, that the land is fit for nothing else. That is what the House is asked to vote for. That is why the House is asked to pass this Supplementary Estimate. I submit, Sir, that the House should oppose it very strongly. The serious thing is not that the farmers may be going to do something illegal—that is bad—but a much more likely prospect is that the farmer will lose all hope whatsoever. I do not mean that he will be driven to desperation in the sense of desperate action but that he will be driven to despair in a sense that will undermine any effort on his part and make any effort impossible. I have noticed that despair growing owing to the action of the Government; and it is the time when that despair is growing, when the farmer is resentful, if you like, and silently grumbling, but mainly overcome by the spirit of despair, that he is caught in this thing and cannot escape from it. It is at a time like this that the Government chooses to exercise these powers. This is a gross abuse of the power the State has.
I am quite aware that if the Government set out to break the independence of the farmers of this country, they can do it. Other Governments have done it and this Government, apparently, are bent on doing it. But you need expect no great future for the country if you do it. If you destroy the whole morale of the farming community in this country, you cannot expect that any of the industries you set up in the towns will compensate for the damage and the wrong you are now doing. I shall ask the House, therefore, Sir, on two definite grounds to refuse to vote this particular grant to the Ministry; on the ground, chiefly, that at the present moment the Government are, practically speaking, delivering the last mortal blow to the principal industry in this country. It may seem to the Minister for Finance that a couple of pounds, or ten pounds, of a land annuity is very small. That may be his view. He may come in here and sneer at the farmers who take a different view, as he did last night, and as he does constantly in this House when questions of that kind arise; but any person who knows the country knows perfectly well the way in which the farmer looks upon parting with money of that kind, especially at a time of crisis. He will regard it as an absolute proof that the Government is determined to sacrifice him, that it does not care what steps it takes so long as it secures that, and that nothing he can do will save him. In fact, blank despair is the only emotion he is liable to feel in the present circumstances. I suggest that, from the point of view of the country, that is about one of the worst things that could happen. For that reason I think the House ought to impress on the Government that it ought not to use, in the present circumstances, these powers of collecting land annuities, either by the method here referred to —Section 28, I think, of the Land Act of 1933—or by any other method.
The Deputy surely realises that he is opening up a very wide question in discussing the advisability of collecting land annuities.
I am simply concluding, Sir.
If the Deputy were allowed to follow that line, other Deputies would naturally claim the right to follow, and the whole debate would be out of order.
I merely mentioned it, Sir, in the course of concluding, in order to show that there were other methods. There are other methods which will at least give an opportunity to the annuitant, if he has a case on economic grounds of not being able to pay, of putting that case forward. Let the case be tried, not by the Minister, not by the officials of the Land Commission, whose business, apparently, it is to get in or to do what they call collecting the land annuities, but by somebody who can hear the case put on both sides, if there is a case to be put up by the Land Commission. On these two grounds I urge, Sir, that the House should not pass this particular Estimate.
In normal circumstances there would not be very much opposition to this particular Vote. People, generally, are not unwilling to subscribe any costs required for upholding the services necessary for the maintenance of law and order, and of courts in general in this State. What we object to in this particular Estimate is that there is an unnecessary expansion of expenditure, mainly brought about by including in this Estimate costs for proceedings— or work, whichever way you like to put it—taken against members of the agricultural community, and proceedings which, one might say, do not even properly come under the head of Circuit Court expenditure. Normally the people were willing to pay, if brought before courts which dealt with criminal cases or with financial liabilities, knowing that before these courts they would get a fair hearing, that the pros and cons would be carefully examined, and justice meted out in a perfectly fair manner. Under this Estimate we are asked to pass £3,000 for temporary assistants and extra court messengers. We object to that.
The Attorney-General
I submit that a discussion as to the execution of a warrant under Section 28 of the Land Act is irrelevant and out of order on this Vote, for this reason, that the county registrar has no discretion whatever in the matter. The moving party in connection with the issue or execution of a warrant is the Land Commission. When the Land Commission decide, under the section, to adopt this procedure for the recovery of the arrears of annuities, they are entitled to issue these warrants to the county registrars. When a county registrar receives a warrant he must execute it. A county registrar or any official connected with the courts has no discretion whatsoever.
We are discussing a definite Estimate for Circuit Court expenditure and included in it is a sum of £3,000 for extra assistants and extra court messengers. Are we not entitled to discuss whether that sum ought to be passed by this House or not?
I suggest that while a county registrar may have no option the Government and the members of it as a whole have the option of not sending these things to a county registrar. I suggest that if this House passes this Estimate it expresses approval of this method while another method is open to the Land Commission. Unless the House can discuss whether this Estimate should be passed or not, I suggest that the debate should be allowed to continue on the lines I have indicated, namely, that the Government having a choice deliberately made its choice. If that choice had not been made country registrars would not be in the position of having to act as they are acting. They have to act—they are compelled to act, because of the action of the Government. I suggest that the Government cannot get out of it by shifting the responsibility to the county registrars.
Some confusion has arisen apparently in the minds of certain Deputies regarding this Estimate. This Estimate is statutory. The money is required for administering Section 28 of the Land Act. If I may say so, Deputy O'Sullivan argued the matter very adroitly, but the section is not open to criticism in the House. It was stated, yesterday, that the particular section met with much opposition when it was going through. Deputies should realise that once a Bill is enacted it is an Act of the Oireachtas. Deputies are limited to a discussion of the administration of the section or of the Act.
Are we not entitled to discuss that there was another method which the Government did not choose to adopt? I am not suggesting that we can discuss the section, its validity, or anything of that kind. Obviously that cannot be done, as you, Sir, very properly ruled. But surely we can discuss the other method that is still in the hands of the Government, which deliberately it has not adopted.
The Deputy is quite right. Other methods of collection may be referred to, and the Government may be urged to follow them. The Government is simply administering a statute the merits of which may not be debated.
The Attorney-General intervened practically before I had said anything. If the Chair had not ruled me out, I thought I would be entitled to refer to the various sub-heads. I did not intend to go into the whole agricultural position, the position of the farmers, or even of the Minister's administration of another Act. I intended merely to refer to some of the items of expenditure, and to ask why the House should be compelled to provide £3,000 for extra court messengers and assistants. I thought I would be perfectly in order in referring to these items. If the courts were working normally, this £3,000 would not be necessary. There would be no necessity for extra expenditure. Those whom we represent were perfectly content with the courts. They were perfectly certain that their cases would receive due deliberation, and that justice would be meted out to them. Where there was proven ability to discharge debts, these debts would be discharged, and no one would object to the operation of the courts. That method has been changed, and the people are asked to supply £3,000 for the alternative methods which have been adopted. I do not intend to go into the legalities of the question, but the change is unpopular, unfair, costly and, I may say, injudicious.
The Deputy, perhaps unwittingly, has described an Act of the Oireachtas as unfair. That is precisely what the Deputy is not entitled to do. The Act can only be discussed on amending legislation or by the introduction of a motion to rescind.
In view of your remarks, Sir, I will withdraw the word "unfair." The change is certainly increasing this Estimate by providing for a number of officers that are unnecessary. If the alternative method had been adopted, the purpose for which these court messengers and assistants were appointed would not have arisen. The money that the Government is now trying to collect would have been collected through the operation of the Circuit Court or other courts without any of the needless expenditure that is included in this Estimate. We object to the extra expenditure of £3,000 for extra assistants and £830 for travelling expenses, on the ground that it is unnecessary. There is also a sum of £400 for incidental expenses in connection with land annuity warrants. We say that is unnecessary. There is the expense of a special telephone system at Mullingar on this Estimate. That is unnecessary; and I do not know for what purpose it is there. If proceedings are taken for the collection of money it should not be necessary to telephone to Mullingar about the matter. Apparently in the opinion of Ministers it is. We had evidence recently of unnecessary expenditure on telephones to bring mechanically propelled vehicles for the purpose of collection of moneys from Dublin and elsewhere. I presume the cost of these is included in this Vote. The work done by the Circuit Courts has not been increased and, therefore, the expenses should not have increased. The expenses of the Circuit Court have increased because of work done in relation to another matter which we hold should not be included in this Vote. We hold that the work involving this extra expenditure could have been done by the ordinary Circuit Courts if they were allowed to come before them instead of having them decided in another manner. To our minds these cases could have been decided in a fair and just manner in the ordinary courts. If that course had been pursued there would have been no necessity to swell the Vote for the Circuit Courts. This new method is simply adding more expense on the community. It is because of that, and of the hardships that it inflicts on the people, that we object to this Vote.
Yesterday I asked the Minister for Justice a question about the costs levied arising out of this special method of collection and how far they go to meet the expenses of the special officers engaged on this work. I know of one case where the costs amounted to £10. I am anxious to get information from the Minister about these costs. Do they go to the county registrars, are they sent up here to headquarters or what becomes of them? Large sums of money are being recovered by way of costs. All this involves great hardship on the annuitants. I intend to pursue this question until I get satisfactory information on it. I am certain that the Minister does not wish to treat the question with levity, or think that I am not worth while replying to. I am satisfied that he will give me the information.
I would like to know, too, what method is adopted for "culling" out annuitants when seizures are to be made. I know of many cases in which it should have been unnecessary to make a seizure by distraint, thereby piling up costs on the unfortunate people concerned. Why I say that is this: that many of these people are owed money by Government-controlled bodies such, for instance, as the Irish Sugar Company and the Department dealing with tobacco. If the farmers concerned were able to get their money from these bodies they could pay their annuities, and there would be no need to pile up costs on them as a result of the seizures made. I know of one case where the Irish Sugar Company owed a man over £70, while there was £20 due to him in connection with tobacco. The special officers came to make a seizure in his case, but when the situation was explained to them they realised that the man was honest. The bank manager was called in and explained the position. They saw that the man could not pay as he was owed all this money by these Government-controlled bodies. Yet in that case the man had to pay over £10 in costs. I would be glad to have some information from the Minister as to where these costs go.
This is a rather extraordinary Vote to meet an extraordinary situation. In view of the fact that the Government had an alternative method of collecting the annuities, and the further fact that discussion on this is rather circumscribed, I think we are entitled to discuss what might have happened had the method in force before the 1933 Act was passed been adopted. When the Bill dealing with the present method of collection was going through the House the great argument used in favour of it was that it would cut down expenses. At that time an attempt was made to show that the amount of the annuities outstanding was so large that it imposed a heavy strain on the ratepayers owing to the fact that the grants payable to local authorities were being withheld in order to meet the deficiency. I think the Government would be well advised to compare the results obtained under the old method of collection and the new. The land annuities are halved now, and yet is it not an extraordinary thing that on the last accounting day the sum outstanding should be £1,183,000? That in itself furnishes a strong criticism of the present method of collection.
The Attorney-General
Of your Party.
No, but of the Attorney-General's Party. In view of that, is it not rather nonsensical to say that it is an agitation that is at the back of this?
The Attorney-General
No.
I would ask the Attorney-General to read the Kerryman. There is a report in it of a discussion at the Kerry County Council in which it is stated that there was no such thing as an agitation in that county against the payment of land annuities or rates. The present situation has not been brought about by any agitation of that kind, but rather by the general bad condition of things which we cannot discuss here.
Trash!
When the present method of collection was being discussed here Deputy Corry spoke strongly in favour of it, but has the new method operated in favour of the collection and if it has not, why not? If it has not, is it because of any agitation going on in the country? I say no. It is because of the circumstances that prevail in the country. I repeat what I said last night, that the Government would be well advised to consider the circumstances that now exist here before they decide to adhere to this method of collection. In practically every county in the Free State there is three times as much outstanding this year as there was last year. That was the reply I got to a question yesterday. I think it provides a rather sad commentary on the present method of collection which we are asked to implement further by this Vote. I oppose the Vote because, in my opinion, it will only aggravate the situation. The Government have an alternative method of getting in the annuities, and it is a much better method than the present one.
With regard to the question raised by Deputy Minch as to the costs, what happens is: the county registrar, in the first instance, makes out what the costs of the court messengers going out to make a seizure will be. He adds that amount to the decree and collects the money in that way. When the decree is levied, the amount collected in respect of these expenses is accounted for to the State. That is how the item "Appropriations-in-Aid" comes into the Vote. As I said at the outset, this is merely a token Vote, because it is anticipated that the Appropriations-in-Aid will meet the expenditure. Deputy O'Sullivan put a question as to the number of warrants issued. Very few warrants have been issued in respect of the November-December gale of 1934, but, in respect of the November-December gale of 1933, the position on the 9th February, 1935, was that there were 15,659 holdings in respect of which warrants were issued. A separate warrant is issued in respect of each holding. In respect of the May-June gale of 1934, the number of holdings in respect of which warrants then remained with the sheriff— that was on the 9th February—was 33,247. I do not think that it would be in order for me to go into the reasons as to why the position is as Deputies represent it to be. I assume that the only line of argument I can properly take in this debate is as to whether Section 28 should be utilised or whether the machinery that operated previously should be resorted to. When the previous Administration were in office, evidence was given by high officials of the Land Commission before a joint committee urging that this method should be resorted to—in other words, that some such section as Section 28 should be introduced. I do not think that any responsible Deputy would say that officials would give evidence before a joint committee if they had not, at least, the approval of their Minister to whom they would have submitted their data before they went. If any people have a complaint to make at this stage about the adoption of a method like this, it should not be those whose officials gave evidence advocating this method when they were in power.
Is that the Minister's opinion of his own officials?
I should say that no Minister would assert that his officials do something without his approval.
This is a question of giving evidence. Does the Minister suggest that civil servants must give evidence which will suit their political masters for the time being?
That is a most contemptible suggestion.
That is what I thought.
If the Deputy had kept his ears open he would know that that is not the position. Here is a question of policy, and officials in a certain Department are nominated by the Minister to give evidence. They give their evidence so as to carry out the policy outlined to them by the Minister for the time being. Is it suggested that these officials went deliberately against the policy their Minister was laying down for them, and that they gave evidence exactly contrary to what he desired them to give?
Is it suggested that they were influenced by him, or is it suggested that they did not give the independent evidence they ought to give?
There is no suggestion of the kind. Does the Deputy suggest that, if a Minister has a definite policy and the officials know what that policy is, they are entitled to pursue a policy directly opposite?
How do you apply the word "policy" to the collection of the land annuities?
It is quite obvious that, at that time, the policy of the Department of Lands was that this method of collection should be adopted. If the Deputy would take the trouble to read the evidence given before the Joint Committee he would see that.
Although, in fact, the policy was not subsequently adopted by the Department of Lands?
The Bill was never introduced.
And the system was never adopted.
There is no evidence that it was dropped.
But it was never adopted.
It was for the Joint Committee to make a recommendation.
When did the Committee make its recommendation?
So far as I remember, in 1931. I am not quite certain of the date. That was the report on which it was intended to base the Courts of Justice Bill. One reason that would influence any person in charge of the Department of Lands in favour of such a section as Section 28 is that it is less costly than the other. In respect of civil bills for amounts of from 30/- to 35/-, the costs in some cases came to 17/6, against a lodgment fee of 2/- or 2/8 in present circumstances. The amount of costs imposed on unfortunate people in those days was absolutely out of proportion to the amount of the debt.
Has the Minister inquired how the question of costs stands now?
The costs to which the Deputy is referring would probably be the costs of seizure?
Yes.
I am speaking of the cost of getting a decree. The costs to which the Deputy is referring would have to be levied in addition to that amount.
I should like a comparison in a few cases of seizure under both systems.
I am satisfied that the sheriffs appointed by the Deputy's administration have not become dishonest.
We have not charged them with dishonesty.
I am satisfied that the sheriffs are trying to keep the costs as low as possible. Every lawyer with any experience of these cases knows that in not 1 per cent. of cases was there a good defence to a civil bill brought by the Land Commission. I ask any barrister or solicitor practising in the country to say, from his own experience or the experience of others, whether in 1 per cent. of cases there was a good defence against a civil bill brought by the Land Commission.
In what percentage of cases was there an extension of time?
I have always contended — some lawyers may disagree with me—that there was no discretion in the district justice to give time. I have seen where district justices adjourned cases rather than give decrees. There is the simple remedy of mandamus to compel the district justice to hear a case.
Would the Minister recommend mandamus in those cases?
If the Deputy saw that the whole administration was being held up in that way, he would have no alternative but to take mandamus proceedings.
We are at cross purposes. My contention is that the district justice exercised a discretion— and a wise discretion—in those cases. There is no such chance under this system.
In the ordinary way I do not admit there is discretion.
Will the Minister admit that the district justice could put a stay on the decree?
There could be an appeal against the stay.
It was in his discretion to do that.
I do not admit that. The point that has been glossed over is that if all the cases were brought to the court of appeal the court would be choked up——
And that is the reason.
We have seen all these frivolous actions staged as part of the campaign of Deputies opposite, raising questions about the sheriff and so on. We had an action at Mullingar where a man who had thousands of pounds refused to pay a few pounds due by him. It is a question of obstruction, as far as these people can possibly carry it. That was so while the campaign advocated by Deputy Brennan was in operation. He says that there is no moral right to make him pay. That policy of obstruction could go on until there would come a time when you would have to duplicate the number of justices.
I hope the Attorney-General will approve the statement about keeping people out of court.
Do those that bring them come into court?
Order.
The principal action is not decided yet.
A few have been.
To the confusion and alarm of the Attorney-General.
The £100,000 fund has gone.
The Deputy has been called to order for interrupting. The Chair will not repeat the warning.
Where application is made to the Land Commission asking for time, it is as sympathetically considered as it would be by the district justice or anybody else. If these people satisfy the Land Commission that they are unable to discharge their debts, the Land Commission will give them time, but I do not anticipate that the Land Commission would go on the basis of saying "We will wait until you pay the shopkeeper."
Would they wait until the farmer had sold his cattle?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Daly, Denis.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Finlay, John.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Supplementary and Additional Estimates reported and agreed to.