With your permission to-day at Question time, I gave notice that I would raise the matter of the very unsatisfactory reply which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands to the question which I put to him relating to the division of a farm of land in the Country Mayo. The facts will show that there is very little room for dispute or for justification for the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude. He certainly did not attempt any justification and I do not see how he can attempt it to-night. The facts are these:—Certain lands at a place called Brize, situate between Claremorris and Balla, in the County Mayo, were taken over compulsorily by the Irish Land Commission. It was on the property of Senator MacEllin and another.
To begin with, the Land Commission proceeded to act in a perfectly right, justifiable and proper fashion, and they did act in a proper fashion and justifiable fashion. That, however, did not please certain persons. The original plan was completely and entirely upset. Around these lands there are various townlands upon which there are people living upon small holdings of land. There are two townlands, one of them called Coolaghbawn and the other Derrowel. The original plan of the Land Commission was to take two men, one from each of these two townlands. These two men had each in these townlands a small holding of land. The two men are the men whom I mentioned in my question to-day. One man is Lavin of Coolaghbawn, and the other is Higgins of Derrowel. These men were appointed by the inspectors of the Land Commission, and holdings were to be allotted to them in exchange for holdings which they were surrendering. They actually signed, as I was informed, purchase agreements. The fact that they signed purchase agreements was denied by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day. But having regard to the answers which were made to me yesterday, completely contradicting the previous answers which had been given, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary is not always supplied with correct information when he is answering questions in this House.
I prefer to believe the information that I have received—that these men were not only appointed to these holdings, but that they actually signed purchase agreements for them. Suddenly the whole thing was upset. Why? That is what I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain. What occurred? What underhand influence was at work? I want to know when quite a proper scheme is arranged by the Land Commission officials, how it can be completely set aside? What happened? Five unmarried young men from the neighbourhood are given part of these lands. These men are not even owners of holdings of land. They are merely, at the best, farmers' sons. These are the men who are selected and given five holdings on these particular lands. They are unmarried young men with no ties to bind them to this country. They can put up the holdings for sale to-morrow, put the purchase money in their pocket and clear away. Yet these men are selected by the Parliamentary Secretary as being fit and proper persons to receive land to the detriment of small holders in the neighbourhood whom the Land Commission officials had known to be fit and proper persons, and who obviously were fit and proper persons to receive part of these farms of land.
How were these men selected? What particular file and on what grounds did the Parliamentary Secretary pick them? I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that one of these men is not a farmer at all? He may be a farmer's son. He had been manager of a co-operative store which got burned, and then I understand he was doing some clerical work in the county council offices. He is one of the men selected to get a holding of land while the congests and small-holders around are not given any portion. I have dealt with the two townlands of Coolaghbawn and Derrowel. The congests there naturally expected and were entitled to expect that when a large farm in their neighbourhood had been broken up, they would receive additions to their own lands. Or else they expected that, by the transmigration of their neighbours to other land, the neighbours' land would be divided between them. Anyhow these men did not receive any benefit.
There is another townland also in that neighbourhood called Knocknakill. That is a townland in which there is very little arable land indeed, so much so that the inhabitants have been for years past in the habit of going outside and buying con-acre on the larger farms about them. When these large farms had been acquired and broken up the small-holders in Knocknakill might reasonably expect to receive portions of tillage land so that their farms could be properly balanced and properly worked. But these people are not going to receive a perch of these tillage lands. The Parliamentary Secretary has arbitrarily selected instead five young men with no claims to these townlands. They are given these holdings because they are special favourites of some individuals who can bring influence to bear on the Parliamentary Secretary. That seems to me to be the only possible explanation of how the original sound plan provided by the Land Commission was set aside.
I cannot digress into other matters which I have already raised on the adjournment here. But I point this out as cumulative to the other matters I have raised as to the distribution of land in the County Mayo. It is the primary duty of the Land Commission under the Statute which this House has passed, the Land Act of 1933, to relieve congestion. That is the primary idea which underlies the whole of our land code now. It is the main principle which has been accepted by every Party in this State. It was a principle that was accepted before there was self-government here. The policy of the old Congested Districts Board for dealing with congestion was to acquire large farms for the purpose of relieving the congests.
Now we discover the Parliamentary Secretary acting—I will go no further than this—with very doubtful legality, and certainly acting against the entire spirit of the land code, and proceeding to choose haphazard individuals who are landless, who are unmarried and who have no claims at all upon this land. I should like to know what his explanations are. I am perfectly aware that, as he stated to-day, two workmen who were working on this farm received land. So far as that is concerned, I am not raising any question. It was correct and proper and that must have been in the original plan drafted by the local officers. What I do object to, and what, in my judgment, amounts to a scandalous misuse of the powers of the Land Commission, is this giving of these holdings of land to these five unmarried young men and leaving the men who are living in the vicinity, who are looking forward to getting portions of this land and endeavouring to rear their families and to support themselves and their families as best they can out of their small holdings, without land. It is an abuse of power, not merely against the spirit, but, in my opinion, against the very letter of the Land Acts, and I am anxious to hear how the Parliamentary Secretary will justify, or should I say, attempt to justify, this very extraordinary and highly improper proceeding.
