Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 22 May, 1930

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Land Commission (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

That a sum not exceeding £423,981 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, s.s. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edwd. VII., c. 37; 7 Edwd. VII., c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edwd. VII., c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1926, 11 of 1926, 19 of 1927, 31 and 41 of 1929).

Mr. Derrig: I desire to propose the amendment standing in my name:

“That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.”

Up to the present the Dáil has not refused to provide any money that was asked for by the Land Commission, and, time after time, Deputies from all Parties have expressed themselves agreeable to provide any further finances that might be required or any further staff that might be required to enable the work of the Land Commission to proceed with more expedition and to be done as quickly as we all wish that it should. We were told last year that there was a considerable slackening off in some branches of the work, and that, owing to the necessity for vesting tenanted land, a great deal of work in the untenanted land section had to be left over. Furthermore, we were told that there had been an accumulation of business in that branch, and I have been told that the Land Commission [2306] finds itself blocked in its dealings with untenanted land. If we are to understand from that that the staff of the Land Commission is absolutely inadequate to carry out the work that was laid before them in 1923 when the Land Act was passed, and when it was suggested, and I think understood, that all outstanding questions of land purchase would be well on the way to solution at the end of five years, then the House should have some clear explanation about it.

Year after year we are providing enormous sums of money for the Land Commission and the most that we can hear, in return for this expenditure, is that the Land Commission is just barely managing to avoid further accumulations of work. The work is piling up on them, they say, and the staff is absolutely incapable of dispatching it with any greater expedition. For that reason I think some further explanation is necessary, and I have put down this amendment. The total cost of the Land Commission is £750,000. Of this, £60,000 is for Gaeltacht housing; £211,000 is for the improvement of estates, and £230,000 is for salaries, wages and allowances. I think it cannot be said, in view of the last figure, that the Land Commission is in any way understaffed. What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have to show the House is what value the country is getting for this expenditure. Is it that the Land Commission was taken over as an effete Department and that it was found absolutely impossible to reorganise it so as to deal with the new situation; that there was the old procedure there, and that the old red tape methods were there, and that the present Ministry have been quite unable to grapple with them? Have they, instead of trying reorganisation, tried to carry on with impossible machinery?

The amount allowed for travelling expenses, £32,000, would seem to indicate that officials are given every facility for travelling and that no stint whatever is made in the generous provision given for allowing them to go about the country [2307] and carry out their work. Although, as I have said, I believe that most of the work in connection with the vesting of land is a legal matter and does not require any great travelling, nevertheless I have not objected to the extraordinarily large amount paid for travelling expenses. We were told that it is absolutely necessary that officials should be able to go about the country to investigate rights of way, water rights, boundaries, turbary and various other matters of that description. I think, however, that the expenditure is out of all proportion to the value we get.

Further down in the Estimate we see that £12,000 in sub-head K is to be advanced to meet deficiencies in income from untenanted land. That is to say, the taxpayer is expected to subsidise the holding up of untenanted land by the Land Commission, land which they are setting. In that way we are subsidising the holding up of schemes which should result in the planting of population, whether they be uneconomic holders, landless men or the sons of farmers. We are holding up that by granting that subsidy. We are also paying under sub-head I £21,000 towards the settlement of Land Committee cases. These were cases where land was taken over under the old Sinn Fein courts. I had expected that after so many years, no matter how involved and intricate these cases were, they would by this time have disappeared from the Estimates. Apparently, however, they have still not been dealt with. That is proof, in my opinion, that the work of the Land Commission is not proceeding with the expedition with which it should proceed.

As regards the Gaeltacht housing grants, the position is that we on this side of the House have no information as to how the Act is working. We would like the Parliamentary Secretary when replying to give some indication as to the amount of money expended already, the programme that is likely to be carried out during the coming year, and when he expects that the total [2308] amount that was intended by this House to be spent on housing in the Gaeltacht—namely, a quarter of a million—will be expended. On page 233 there is a footnote stating that allowance is made to the economic geologist attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce for acting as an expert adviser in connection with mineral rights. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what the position is in regard to mineral rights. I think that under a particular Act the Land Commission have been granted certain powers to deal with the question of mineral rights. As a promise has been given to set this whole question in order, I would be glad to know what the Land Commission are doing in that matter.

I put down a question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking him to state the total amount of money which tenants are paying as payments in lieu of rent. The House is familiar with the fact that before tenants are vested under the Acts 1923-27 they are paying what is called payment in lieu of rent. That, however, is of no advantage to them, in so far as no reduction is made in the ultimate purchase price which the tenant has to pay. No reduction is made either in regard to sinking fund or interest on principal by these payments. The tenant can go on paying money in lieu of rent year after year and for many years. At the end of that time, when the Land Commission sees fit to vest him, he has to begin to pay all over again for 68½ years until he clears off the purchase price. In the year 1928-9 the tenants in this way paid £898,000, of which £756,000 went to the landlords. Therefore the landlords or their representatives lost nothing. Their rights were safeguarded under the Act. The Land Commission lost nothing either, because they were paid the expense of collecting, which came to something over £20,000.

It is a most remarkable thing that the Minister for Finance has found this a most profitable transaction— this business of holding up the vesting [2309] of land which, if it were carried out, would actually mean a burden on the State. In so far as the State should finance the transaction, provide the land bonds, pay a contribution of 10 per cent. on purchase, instead of having to provide that and having to bear any burden in the carrying out of the work in connection with land purchase and the vesting of tenants, the State actually gains on the delay. Therefore it is quite clear, from the point of view of the Minister for Finance and, I fear, from the point of view of the Land Commission, that there is strong financial reason that instead of hurrying up this matter they should delay it as much as possible. In the year 1928-9 £132,000 was paid in income tax, so that tenants, as well as paying the landlords and the cost of collecting, have also been paying the Land Commission.

Since the 1923 Act was passed I find that the total payments by the tenants up to the latest available date came to nearly £6,000,000, of which four and three-quarter million may be said to have gone to the landlords and about £1,200,000 in income tax to the State. Thus, while farmers all over the country are complaining about the delay in vesting and the burdens of annuities which fall on them, in addition to many other burdens, they are, in fact, subsidising the Minister for Finance and his income tax officials and paying over this huge sum of money. We have often urged that reduction. I do not care whether it can be made by vesting the tenants and carrying out the legal processes which are said to be necessary or whether, as in the North, the Government say to the farmers “whenever we vest you we will see that you will get value for the money paid; we will recoup you for the payments made so that you will not be in the position of paying £900,000 a year for so many years and that all that money, so far as you are concerned, is a dead loss.”

There are 90,000 tenants involved in that. I ask the House whether [2310] they are satisfied that that state of affairs should continue. There may be a slight reduction every year from this time forward if, as we are told, the Land Commission is going to concentrate on this aspect of the matter, and there may be reductions in the amount paid in lieu of rent, but there will be an increase in the number of tenants vested and paying annuities and who are in the position of knowing that every payment they make is helping to clear off the debt and that after a certain time they will become owners of the land. It is proceeding very slowly. Although there has been an improvement last year, the total number of holdings vested came to 4,500.

Mr. Roddy: That is not the total.

Mr. Derrig: That is for last year.

Mr. Roddy: No, the total was 9,217.

Mr. Derrig: In a reply given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary he stated that during the year ending 31st March, 1930, 2,781 judicial tenancies and 1,786 non-judicial tenancies were vested.

Mr. Roddy: That is under the Act of 1923.

Mr. Derrig: That makes a total of 4,567. That is under the Land Act of 1923. Further down we learn that the total number remaining to be vested is 47,000 judicial and 32,000 non-judicial tenants, and of these, 7,540 judicial and 8,186 non-judicial have been provisionally gazetted prior to vesting. In spite of the improvement, the fact is that vesting is likely to go on for twenty years even if no fresh work accumulates. If the Land Commission simply deals from this time forward with the number of judicial and non-judicial tenants who remain to be vested it seems to me at the present rate of progress it will take a generation. It was stated that the Land Commission—and I tried to make allowance for that fact—was clogged with the amount of work in the untenanted land section. There has been a definite slackening off in [2311] that section in various ways, and I hold that the work of vesting should proceed more quickly.

If we take it from another point of view and ask ourselves how much money has been issued in land bonds every year, representing the total amount of the proceedings which the Land Commission has in hands, we will find that the amount falls very far short of that issued during the old regime. Under the 1903 Act, I think it was, it was definitely arranged that between five and six million pounds should be floated every year. According to the 1928-1929 accounts of the Land Commission the total amount floated up to the end of the financial year came to £5,700,000. The total amount that will be necessary to complete the work has been stated to be over £30,000,000—some say £33,000,000. At the rate of one and a half million issued every year, obviously it would also take a generation to complete the work.

Mr. Roddy: I am afraid the Deputy is quoting the wrong figures. Since 1903 over £12,000,000 has been issued in land bonds. If the Deputy will refer to my statement he will see that.

Mr. Derrig: I am looking at page 12 of the Land Commission Accounts for 1928-9, Land Purchase Account No. 3; Land Acts, 1923 to 1927, Advance Account; 4½ per cent. bonds issued by the Land Commission, £5,700,000, up to the 31st March, 1929. For the year under review the amount is £1,670,000. If there is a mistake I submit the mistake is in the accounts. If the Parliamentary Secretary can show me that a great deal more land bonds have been issued than is stated here I shall be very glad. In any case it would be well if the House were acquainted with the exact procedure.

Mr. Roddy: The Deputy has referred to the land bonds issued under the Land Act of 1923. The actual figures for the issue of land bonds under the Acts of 1923, 1903, and 1909 up to the 31st March, 1929, [2312] was £12,000,000 odd. The figure which the Deputy has quoted refers to the issue of land bonds under the Act of 1923.

Mr. Derrig: Where are the other figures given?

Mr. Roddy: They are given in the other tables.

Mr. Derrig: In any case it was stated in 1923 that it would take £30,000,000 to complete the work of land purchase. My figures may be incorrect in so far as they represent only the amount issued under the 1923 Act. If the figure of £12,000,000 given by the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, are we to understand that the amount remaining to complete land purchase is £18,000,000? I want to know whether there is any obligation on the Department of Finance, or whoever is responsible to restrict the issue of land bonds. I know that the issue must have cognisance of money market conditions and the price of land, but, generally speaking, I think the House will be glad to have an assurance that there is no other obligation, that the Ministry have full power to issue whatever bonds they think fit, and that there is no obligation on them to put a limit to their issue.

It was stated that the vesting of land could not be carried out in the way we suggested. It could not be carried out because, according to the Minister for Agriculture, it is an impossible condition, and the present state of affairs, by which tenants paid in the last financial year under review, £854,000, by which they are not going to get credit for that amount and are not going to get the reduction which they would get if they were vested, is liable to continue.

It seems to me that if the Land Commission were in earnest that they could get over this matter under the various Land Acts. For example under the 1923 Act, Section 29, sub-section (4) there is a provision in regard to retained holdings. A holding might be taken over as a retained holding by the Land Commission and the standard [2313] purchase annuity fixed there and then, as far as I can understand from the Section, and subsequently the vesting could take place. It speaks of the standard purchase annuity being paid from the appointed day until the gale day next after the vesting of the holding or until such time as the Land Commission may carry out an apportionment or variation therein. That is to say there is a provision for holding the land in the first instance, fixing the standard purchase annuity and afterwards arranging certain legal matters or certain modifications which the Land Commission want to carry out.

Under the 1897 Act, it seems to me that the Land Commission have power, as was suggested from this side of the House, to put on the vesting order certain reservations or conditions, provided it was understood by them that these reservations and conditions were accepted by the tenant purchaser and that subject to such reservations the Land Commission could issue the vesting order upon which these reservations or exceptions were set out. Section 34 sub-section (2) of the 1896 Act states that the vesting order may declare that the sale is subject to or free from particular rights or appurtenances.

Are we to understand, as has been suggested to me, that under the compulsory powers granted to the Land Commission under the 1923 Act, procedure is liable to be slower than it was heretofore, that because heretofore certain obligations were placed on the landlord, while now everything is done for the landlord at the expense of the tenant or the State, that there has been a slowing down, that far more work is necessary by the Land Commission and is not done—I am not blaming them for that—but owing to these circumstances it is not done so efficiently, and that it is more troublesome and more detailed? It seems extraordinary that procedure should be slower under compulsory powers, where it was intended the work should be done quickly and not be [2314] left hanging over. If that is so I submit the House should open up the whole matter of land purchase, and should cut out the loopholes and the various provisions under the Acts that have been passed by the House, by which certain people or certain interests are holding up this work.

I submit, therefore, that the work of vesting is not proceeding with the rapidity with which it should, and that if the explanation so often given, even if it is a true explanation, that arrangements have to be made to find out about the boundaries and other things is right, it is quite clear from the estimate there is sufficient staff to deal with that matter, and that that ought not to be any excuse. There is no reason why, if the original intentions of the House were carried out, all untenanted land should be taken over on a certain date, that more progress should not be made in that respect.

One of the difficulties the Land Commission has to deal with is the increased prices fixed on the land by the Judicial Commissioner. From certain figures supplied to me, it appears that the total prices originally fixed in certain cases which were ultimately brought before him on appeal amounted to £896,000, which he raised to £962,000, representing an increase of £66,000, or nearly 7½ per cent. Although this was a serious burden on the tenants —since the Land Commission sends down expert valuers who put decent prices on land, and they must have mainly in view whether the land at those prices will be an economic proposition for those who have to live on it—nevertheless the Land Commission proceeded in all these cases and gave the benefit of the doubt to the vendors, and except in one or two small cases proceeded with the work and paid a higher price. When that is so, and when the landlord or the owner can go to the Land Commission under different sections of the Act and hold up the work, even when it is the settled policy of the Government, I [2315] submit that it is unfair, on the other hand, to have the position that tenants who are entitled to be vested for many years past are being mulcted in large sums of money every year.

I have a number of cases in my own constituency in which I made repeated application to the Land Commission to deal with the problem of groups of congests or uneconomic holders. I have an advertisement here in connection with a ranch called the Cloghna ranch, consisting of “250 acres of excellent grazing, to be let in suitable divisions of from seventy to forty acres each.” That land is being let by the Land Commission for many years, and long before I came into this House Deputy Doyle was asking why it was not being distributed amongst the neighbouring uneconomical holders. After all the trouble we have taken to try to get this land divided amongst the people, the House is asked to subsidise that state of affairs and to continue to have this land let to people who can well afford to get a living in some other way and to keep it from people who need it, or even if they got the land making them pay five or six times the price they would have to pay if they were placed on the land as the ultimate occupiers.

Since the 1923 Act was passed, according to their figures, the Land Commission in County Carlow has only dealt with Committee cases which were handed over from the old Sinn Féin administration. I give it credit for carrying out that work successfully and for giving general satisfaction, but after so many years I ask, could it not be possible to have done a little more than to bring to an end what was begun in 1920 and 1921? The only other cases besides that of Kelletstown, Moyle and Duckettsgrove are two representing 571 acres. That is the only new work that the Land Commission has done in County Carlow, where there are large numbers of landless men, uneconomic [2316] holders and labourers, who have a good knowledge of agriculture and who in many cases are prepared to put up some kind of security that they will work the land properly if they get it. That county is one of the most industrious in the Free State, yet the only new work that the Land Commission has done to satisfy the requirements of these people is to take over 571 acres.

Mr. Law: I propose to deal with certain specific cases in my own district. I do not make any apology to the House for saying a few words on this matter, because, while I deprecate in a general way the bringing of particular cases to its notice, excluding the more general subjects, I think, at the particular stage which our land operations have reached, there is really very little use in the enunciation of general principles. We have long ago agreed that tenanted land is to be transferred as quickly as possible from the landlord to the occupiers. We are all in perfect agreement that where there is unoccupied untenanted land suitable for division it should be divided as quickly and as equitably as possible. We are naturally impatient of delay and each of us thinks of our own particular cases. I believe only those who are actually dealing with a particular estate can possibly be in a position to know what the difficulties are, and in a great many of the cases in which undue delay is alleged and in which undue delay seems, to the outsider, to occur it will be found that it was unavoidable. It is quite impossible so complicated is the whole business to deal with the transfer of the land in the summary manner in which some of us, in our desire to see a particular business got through quickly, are inclined sometimes to imagine it should be done.

I am not going to follow Deputy Derrig into those general considerations which he has raised. I really only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with a couple of matters which interest my own constituency somewhat seriously. In [2317] the first place, I would very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what has been the result of the experiments in the reclamation of waste land carried out in County Donegal. I have been told that these experiments have been highly successful. I am informed that in one case—I think it is the Rose O'Donnell Estate—it has been found possible, at much less expense than has hitherto been experienced, to convert bog land into land suitable for carrying very good crops. If that is so, I think it would be very encouraging to the House, and it would mean this, that while unlimited developments are not possible in that direction, very great developments are possible throughout the Gaeltacht. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with that, but I think it would be of interest to the House if he would state in some detail what has actually occurred there. If the experiments have been as successful as I have been led to believe they are I would like him to tell us what further developments the Land Commission have in mind, in Co. Donegal or elsewhere. About a year ago I brought to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention suggestions for reclamation in other parts of the county, particularly in the very poor district of Bloody Foreland. I would be very glad to know whether these representations have received consideration and whether any developments are pending in these districts.

Another matter with which I want to deal is again typical of our problems, in the congested districts particularly, and that is the distribution of the land of the Stewart-Bam Estate, particularly what is known as the Ards Demesne. I think it is generally recognised in the district that the distribution, as far as it has gone, has been a very fair and reasonable one. But the Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree with me that it is very undesirable to leave any loose ends, and in that case there are, to my knowledge, a number of people—labourers on the estate, landless men, and uneconomic holders—whose claims are quite [2318] as strong as were those of any of the people who have already been accommodated with land.

I know perfectly well that you cannot put a quart into a pint pot, that if you have got only a certain number of acres to distribute you cannot put more than a certain number of people on them, but in this case it happens, that the lands that have been distributed are not the whole of the lands available. I will not trouble the House with details; the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly well aware of the facts. There is a good deal of anxiety, to put it no further, in the district with regard to this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has in his control certain lands the ultimate fate of which has not yet been finally decided, and I would like him to give us here a definite assurance that the situation will not be prejudiced, and that these people who are looking for the land, and whose claims are good claims, will not be estopped by anything that the Land Commission either has done or will do until a good deal further consideration has been given to the matter.

Mr. Clery: Deputy Derrig has proposed that this Estimate be referred back. I think the majority of Deputies, if they have the courage of their convictions, will at least admit that it should be referred back, for many reasons. The Parliamentary Secretary made a very convincing case, as far as figures are concerned, when introducing it. I am prepared to admit that at once. We all know that figures can prove anything, and if I were in the position—it would be a happy position—that I had no practical experience of the working of the Land Commission, or if I came from a county in which congestion was very little known, I would have been more or less convinced from the Parliamentary Secretary's case that the Land Commission had done its duty. But anyone who knows the conditions as they exist in the congested counties in the West of Ireland, or in any other part of the country, will certainly realise that the Land Commission [2319] has made no appreciable progress since this Estimate was before us last year. As regards the acquisition and division of land or the vesting of holdings no appreciable progress has been made in Mayo since the Estimate was before us last year, and I am anxious, in order that the Land Commission should realise the dissatisfaction that there is, that the majority of Deputies should vote for referring back the Estimate.

I will give a number of instances where, although pressure has been brought to bear on the Land Commission for three or four years or longer, the position has remained unchanged. In 1927, and on several occasions since, questions have been asked in the Dáil and letters have been written to the Land Commission urging that a number of farms in North Mayo be taken over and divided amongst local congests. In practically every case the position, as far as the congests are concerned, still remains the same as it was in 1927. To show how ridiculous this position is I will give an instance. There is a farm of about 200 acres in a very congested district in East Mayo near Charlestown. In 1927 a question was asked here as to when the Land Commission was prepared to acquire that land for distribution. It was again raised last September, and again last week, and on each occasion the Parliamentary Secretary's answer was practically the same—that inquiries were being instituted—but there was a slight advance last week, when he said that now they were aware of the price demanded by the present occupier of the land and the matter was being considered.

There are also three or four small farms in the Bohola district, in East Mayo, I think one of the worst districts so far as congestion and the rundale system is concerned. Questions were raised about this place in 1927, again in 1929, and again last week, and with the exception of the statement that the Land Commission was going to take action [2320] at the earliest possible moment to acquire these farms for distribution, very little advance has been made in that case. The same thing applies to farms in other parts of East Mayo. For instance, in the very congested district of Killasser a small farm was acquired by the Land Commission some time ago. On account of the congestion there the people even went so far as to request the Land Commission, if they could not distribute the land amongst the local congests, at least to set it to them in conacre until such time as they had a scheme prepared for its distribution. The Land Commission did not give any effect to that request, the land is still untenanted, and the people in the districts surrounding the farm have to live under the same hard conditions. Were it not for the fact that they are migratory labourers and go to England for a period every year they would not be able to exist at all.

It is the existing state of affairs in these congested districts which the Land Commission have not taken into consideration. If the Land Commission, or the Government, who are mainly responsible, or the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, who are primarily responsible for the policy of the different Departments were interested in the welfare of the people of those districts and understood the harsh conditions under which they have to live, they would deal with this problem of congestion in the West in a more expeditious way. They seem to be satisfied to go on in the old humdrum fashion and they never realise that the congests there, who are always waiting for something to be done for them, have to live under very harsh conditions. There are estates, for instance, in the Gaeltacht area of Mayo and, with the exception of two estates, the Carter and the O'Reilly Estates, that have been acquired recently, nothing else has been done. Our experience is that when the Land Commission acquire an estate they take up a considerable amount of time before they are able to produce a [2321] scheme for the vesting of the tenants or, what is more important, produce proposals for the migration of people in congested districts.

There is also in this Gaeltacht area the urgent problem of the islanders of Inniskee. I hold that this should not be treated more or less as a local question. In 1927 an official of the Land Commission visited the islanders and made certain promises to them. I have here a note in the matter which I received from one of the islanders from which I should like to read an extract. The reason that I am going into these particular cases is that I am convinced after the few years I have spent here that the majority of Deputies have very little or no knowledge of the conditions existing in congested areas in the West. There are Deputies from counties here that could be described as ranching counties—in fact, there are rancher Deputies here— and although they may be sympathetic enough with the claims of the people in the congested areas they have little or no knowledge of the conditions as they exist in the West. When we ask that the Land Commission Estimate be referred back, we do so for a very good reason. Therefore I mention cases of this kind so that Deputies from areas where they know nothing of congestion, and where the ordinary farm perhaps might be 200 acres in extent, would realise that the position as far as we in the West are concerned is serious. This letter states:—

“The islanders are willing to give the Land Commission plenty of time to build houses, say, two or three years. What they desire is to have the land striped for them so that they will be able to build little houses during the summer. All we want is to get ashore before next winter. I cannot describe the feelings of the islanders owing to the way their case has been put back. After the disaster of October, 1927, a Mr. Ross of the Fishery Board visited the place and told the people that if they wanted to leave the island the Government [2322] would give them land and houses ashore.”

The writer goes on to state: “We have no shops, no priest, no doctor, no nothing on the island.” When we consider the very harsh winter we have had, with storms and all that, and know that in these islands the people for considerable periods— one time for six weeks—could not go ashore and had to live on whatever they had laid in, and that they had no doctor, priest or nurse on the island, we can understand the anxiety of these people to get ashore, as they were promised by the Land Commission they would be able to do when the land on the O'Reilly estate had been acquired. They are so anxious to be brought ashore before the coming winter that they are prepared to build huts to live in on the mainland and let the Land Commission in the ordinary course of events go ahead with the building of houses or make some arrangement for them to do it. According to what the Parliamentary Secretary stated last week, no advance has been made as far as these islanders are concerned. They are preparing a scheme, of course, but they have been doing that for years as far as some other estates are concerned.

The same thing may be said as to a large number of estates in the Erris area. In fact in the Lackin district the occupier of the Rathfran lands has been negotiating with the Land Commission since 1927 for their sale. Prior to that even the case had been taken up by the Land Commission. The people in that district, who live under the most disgraceful conditions, are still hoping that the Land Commission will do something for them. I could mention at least a dozen cases where owners of land in North Mayo are anxious to dispose of it to the Land Commission. There may be some difficulty about the price, but these people are anxious to get land in other areas and leave the farms they own at present for the relief of congestion. For the past year nothing has been done in that whole district except that negotiations have been [2323] carried on by the Land Commission. With the exception of acquiring the O'Reilly and Carton estates nothing in the way of improving land on estates has been carried out, nothing in the way of division of land has been done in that district, which is one of the worst districts in Ireland as far as congestion goes.

In order to emphasise that this is a very live question in Mayo I shall read a resolution passed unanimously by the Mayo County Council on the 22nd March this year. The majority of the members of that County Council have Cumann na nGaedheal views and the Chairman is a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. This is the resolution which they passed:

That this council views with grave concern the delay which has occurred in the provision of land in other counties for the migration of large landholders in Mayo, so that the lands of the latter may become immediately available for the relief of congestion.

That the Government be requested to put into force the compulsory powers vested in them in this connection.

That a copy of this resolution be sent to President Cosgrave, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and to each of the County T.D.s.

Surely when the County Council went to the extent of taking up this question and placing their views before President Cosgrave, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries and the T.D.s., they realised that it was a very live question. Prior to this of course when we raised the question about the division of land Cumann na nGaedheal members said that we simply wanted to have a “grouse” against the Government, but when we find the Mayo County Council, on which there is a majority of Cumann na nGaedheal members, and at least three Cumann na nGaedheal T.D.s, passing a resolution of that kind condemning the Land Commission it shows that it is not we alone that [2324] are dissatisfied in connection with this question. In fact, whenever the few existing Cumann na nGaedheal branches in Mayo come together once in a while, it is to pass a resolution condemning the Land Commission. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe that, he can come with me any time, if we are allowed in, and listen to the resolutions being passed.

There is another serious matter which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to throw some light upon and that is the question of the Castle Hill estate, Crossmolina. This matter has been raised here on a few occasions. In Castle Hill there are 700 acres in a demesne. The owner of these lands was brought before the Land Commission. Some time ago the case came before the Judicial Commissioner and a decision was given that this Mr. Walsh was entitled to hold the demesne and that the congests in the surrounding parishes were entitled to no portion of the land. But the fact remains that, with the exception of 65 acres, practically all the Castle Hill Demesne was got as a result of evictions carried out in that area from 1846 to 1890. These are comparatively recent events. There were over 55 families evicted on that estate. There was no such thing as a ranch or a farm in that particular district until the individual who was owner at the time evicted all those people and laid out his beautiful demesne. The wall surrounding that demesne to-day is composed, for the most part, of materials from the houses that were knocked down following the eviction of the people. I have a very complete account of that event here, and reading it over I find that at least ten of the people who were evicted—this was as late as 1890—died on the roadside, having been thrown out of their holdings by the predecessor of the present holder. It may be said that this is more or less a question of sentiment. But if it is, what blame can be attached to the descendants of those people who died upon the roadside and who to-day are making strong claims upon the Land Commission [2325] that the whole question of the land on the Castle Hill Estate should be re-opened. Their case is that when the present occupier of that land was brought before the Judicial Commissioner it was his case only that was heard. If that is not correct, then it is for the Parliamentary Secretary, or somebody else, to give the House the other point of view. I believe if the case for the congests and the people whose grandfathers were evicted, and the general case of congestion in that particular area, was heard before the Judicial Commissioner, his decision would have been entirely different.

A number of public meetings have been held in the past year in this particular district. These meetings were held by the people in general; they were not political meetings I am glad to say; they were presided over by the local clergy, and resolutions were passed and forwarded to the Land Commission stating the case and asking that the question should be re-opened. Further, a few months ago, a resolution passed by a meeting presided over by the local curate, in the absence of the parish priest, called upon all Teachtaí for the county to take a united stand upon this question and in the event of no satisfaction being given that they should in a body vote for the rejection of the Land Commission Estimate. I trust Deputies from Mayo will remember that fact when this Vote is taken. There are many other things I could say about this particular case but I think, as the resolution and the papers have been forwarded to the Parliamentary Secretary, at least on one occasion, he understands the case and I need not emphasise it any further.

The question of vesting has been mentioned. I think that the question of delay in vesting of holdings is perhaps a greater injustice to the tenant farmers than is the handing over of the land annuities. I have heard of a case where an estate was vested 17 years ago. One particular tenant was not vested at that time but the fault was not his. His holding was quite all right, the [2326] boundary was correct and so was everything else. All along he has been demanding that his holding should be vested, but it was only when he refused to pay rent two years ago that the Land Commission took notice of his case. This was in Kiltimagh district and his holding was vested after that. He paid rent for the last 17 years and it is only now he starts to pay the purchase price of his holding. I know a number of estates in Mayo where you have individuals whose neighbours' holdings were vested as far back as 1913 while their lands are not yet vested. They have applied to the Land Commission time and again to have their holdings vested but no heed has been given in these particular cases. That will mean that when their neighbours have paid their annuities and have their holdings free, these people who have not yet been vested will have 20 years further to go to pay off the annuities. The money paid in the meantime has never been considered. It goes into the coffers of the Land Commission.

That matter has never been taken up seriously by the Land Commission. If it were, outstanding cases would have been given some attention some time or other. The slovenliness of the Land Commission is what I object to. If the Land Commission carried on with a little of the go and efficiency of the Congested Districts Board I think we would not have much fault to find with it. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary can give us figures showing that they have vested so much land since the Congested Districts Board went out of existence. Figures can prove anything, but it is quite evident to me that there is some delay and no anxiety on the part of the Land Commission or the Parliamentary Secretary to right matters. I was reading quite recently the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary when introducing this Estimate last year. He then said, “If the Land Commission were staffed entirely by temporary forces, without restriction as to numbers, it [2327] might be possible to make quicker progress with the completion of its main work, but where a large staff of permanent and experienced officers are involved the State must take notice of the danger of being left with a greater number of such officers on its hands than can be fully provided with work for the full period of their permanent service.”

That is a statement that I would like some explanation of. Are we to take it that the work of the Land Commission has been in general hampered because you have a staff of permanent officials and because they are permanent and pensionable you must guarantee that they will have work for the rest of their natural lives? I can draw no other conclusion from the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected by him. I think that the position is such that it is not fair to a number of the harder worked officials of the Land Commission. I know a number of inspectors are fully occupied and giving their full time. They have no easy time at all, and I think it is rather hard upon them that because another part of the Department happens to be overstaffed you must hamper work in order that those people should be continued in their jobs. I would like some light upon that subject. That seems to be the most reasonable statement as to the easy-going methods of the Land Commission, and since it comes from official sources I take it it must be the true one.

There are a good many other matters which I could go into, but they are simply local questions dealing with estates, delays in vesting, and things of that kind. I will not bother going into them now. The question at the moment is that we are anxious, in the interests of the Land Commission itself and in the interests of the people in the congested districts in particular, that a majority of the members of this House would vote for the amendment to have this Estimate referred back. I am convinced that if numbers of Cumann [2328] na nGaedheal Deputies take heed of what has been told them by the the members of their own Cumann na nGaedheal branches and by their own friends that, in the interests of their supporters, they will vote for the amendment to have this Estimate referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Nally: When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, I hope he will tell us the cause of the delay in vesting the following estates in South Mayo: The de Clifford, taken over in 1913; the Lucan, taken over in 1913; the Sligo, taken over in 1914; the Lynch Blosse, taken over in 1908; the Lord Dillon, taken over in 1915; the Brabazon, taken over in 1915; the Monica Lynch, taken over in 1915; and the Jordan (Cloonmore), taken over in 1917. Let us take, for example, the case of a tenant on the de Clifford estate whose rent is £10. Since that estate was taken over he has paid, in the intervening 17 years, £170 interest in lieu of rent. If that estate were vested to-morrow the tenant would have to pay an annuity for 68½ years. That would be equal to 85 years' purchase. I think some steps should be taken by this House and by the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the Land Commission is not allowed in future to defraud tenants by holding up the vesting of these estates. That deprives them of the benefits of from ten to fifteen years' purchase of their holdings.

With regard to the acquisition of land in South Mayo, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the cause of the delay in taking over certain grazing ranches there which I will mention. There is a grazing ranch held by Messrs. McCarton Brothers at Hollymount containing 800 acres. There is acute congestion in the parishes of Kilcommon and Crossboyne which could be relieved if that ranch was taken over. Then there is the Castlemacgarrett demesne of over 1,600 acres which, if acquired, would enable relief to be given to tenants in possession of uneconomic holdings in the electoral divisions of Ballindine, Kilvine, [2329] Caraun and Claremorris. Their valuation is under £5. During the last four or five years the Land Commission have promised that they would acquire that demesne, but so far nothing has been done. In the parish of Islandeady, between Castlebar and Westport, there are over 100 tenants whose valuation is under £5. There is a large grazing ranch in the centre of that parish at Green hill held by a gentleman named Mr. Matthew Fahy. Mr. Fahy states that on several occasions, during the last four or five years, he has offered this farm to the Land Commission either for exchange or purchase, but the Land Commission have not taken over the farm. They have done nothing in connection with it. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the intentions of the Land Commission in respect to this farm. I might mention that the Mayo County Council, at a recent meeting, unanimously passed a resolution asking the Land Commission to acquire this farm of Mr. Fahy's. I suppose the county council got the usual stereotyped reply, stating that the matter would receive attention.

The Land Commission are well aware of the acute congestion that exists in the parishes of Balla, Mayo and Kiltimagh. Within three miles of the parish of Balla 3,000 acres are held in grazing. The lands are known as a grazing ranch. The lands in question are held by Mr. McEllin who has 800 acres, and Mr. James Cowan who has 750 acres. Resolutions, petitions and memorials have been sent to the Land Commission during the last five years asking them to acquire these lands, but so far nothing has been done.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us the number of times that the farms held by Messrs. McEllin and Cowan were inspected during the last three years, and with what result. There is a large farm held by Mrs. Cummins, of Galway, which surrounds the town of Shrule. This is a large grazing ranch. During the last three or four years resolutions and petitions have been sent [2330] to the Land Commission asking them to take over this farm so that something might be done for the poor unfortunate town tenants in Shrule and the uneconomic holders in that locality. Their valuation would probably be about £2. Still nothing has been done. Promises have been given, but that is all. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the Land Commission will speed up the acquisition of land. If not, there is one thing that will happen, and that is that local pressure will be brought to bear which will compel them to do it.

Mr. Corry: I rise to support Deputy Derrig's amendment that this Estimate be referred back. Last year we had several flowery promises from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would expedite the vesting of holdings, but these flowery promises are like other promises that we get from the Departments here—they are remarkable only in the breaking of them. I have before me the Parliamentary Secretary's own report dealing with the vesting of holdings in the last twelve months. I have, side by side with it, the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary himself last year on the vesting of holdings. In his opening statement on this Vote last year he said that 110 holdings were vested under the 1903 and 1909 Acts, that 5,100 purchasers had been dealt with under the estates previously purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board. He also stated that under the 1923 and 1927 Acts 3,785 holdings had been vested. That gives a total of 8,995 holdings vested. The total this year, as given in the report before me, is 9,217. In addition to that supposed enormous increase we have a statement made as to the number of holdings in process of acquisition or in process of being vested. I do not know how many changes or extended processes there are in this special Department, but comparing last year with this year we find that there has only been an increase of 222 holdings vested this year. I do not by any [2331] means consider that satisfactory. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary himself can consider it very satisfactory.

“Steps have also been taken in this connection,” according to the Parliamentary Secretary's Report, volume 29, No. 2, page 221, “to strengthen the staff engaged in the office of the Land Commission and special efforts are being made to expedite the rate of vesting during the coming year.” And the total increase is 222 holdings. No doubt he has occasion to be proud. There are still about 90,000 holdings waiting to be vested. According to the Parliamentary Secretary's own figures, 79,000 holdings still remained to be vested under the Land Acts of 1923 and 1927. At the present rate of proceeding I do not know how many holdings are waiting to be vested under other Acts. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us how many holdings like those described by Deputy Nally are waiting to be vested, and regarding which there have been agreements from 1915 to 1918. It would be interesting to know how many of those unfortunate tenants are still waiting to be vested, and if the reason why these unfortunate tenants are paying interest in lieu of rent from 1915 to 1930 is in order that the Minister for Finance might collect his income-tax.

We might be told there is a question of title involved. If that is so and the landlords have not the proper title to the holdings, why should the Land Commission collect the interest in lieu of rent from the tenants? Under what right or title do they collect it? If the landlord has not title to show why should he get the rent? If there is a doubt in the matter why should not the tenant get the benefit of it? Instead of that we have an enormous sum collected year after year as interest in lieu of rent. Fancy the unfortunate tenant having, as Deputy Nally says to pay from 1915 to 1930 interest in lieu of rent for a holding to which perhaps he has more title than anybody in existence. He surely [2332] has, for I am certain there is no holding waiting to be vested from 1915 to 1930 if the landlord's title is valid. Why should the tenant pay rent in such a case? I wish I had a landlord with a title that was not valid, for I am sure he would not get one halfpenny from me. That a so-called Government Department turns around and collects rent off those unfortunate tenants is nothing more nor less than a scandal. I have heard the argument put up that it is because of trouble about the validity of title that the delay is caused. If there is any other reason for the delay I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will state it here, and that he will give some reason why these unfortunate tenants should be waiting for the vesting of their holdings from 1915 to 1930.

I think it is an extraordinary thing that Deputy Nally, who has been here from 1922 to 1930, has been voting every year in favour of the Land Commission Vote while this condition of affairs continues to exist in his constituency. I think Deputy Nally should now realise the position, and that until he puts his foot down and shows that he has the courage of his convictions and votes against the Estimate this condition of affairs will continue. I hope he will have the courage of his convictions to-day. I was wondering why this delay was caused until I heard Deputy Derrig's statement to-day and I looked into those figures, and I found that last year £132,714 was handed over to the Minister for Finance of the amount collected from the unfortunate tenants as interest in lieu of rent. I think it is a scandalous and shameful state of affairs that the reason why a Government Department should hold up the vesting of holdings is in order that the Finance Department might derive revenue as a consequence from all the unvested tenants from whom he is collecting, and that the landlords' agents in that Department of his should be kept busy with an interest in the non-vesting of holdings. Then we had the extraordinary statement made by Deputy Derrig [2333] of the number of appeals lodged against the prices fixed by the Land Commission Department and the result with regard to them. I have before me a statement made by Deputy Hassett last year when he dealt with this matter very exhaustively. I quote from the Parliamentary Debate Volume 29, page 684. He said:—

“Another thing I have to complain of is the high price which has been given for land by the Land Commission in the last few years—prices out of all proportion to what the future tenants can pay. We have able Land Commission inspectors going down to the country, men with fifteen or twenty years' experience, valuing and inspecting these ranches which the Land Commission is proposing to take over. They inspect every field, dig up the soil, take into consideration everything on that land, its suitability for holdings, and so on, and what do we find? Generally the owner of that land, if he thinks the price does not suit him, comes up here to our friend in the Land Courts and appeals against the price, and our friend in the Land Courts generally allows him twenty per cent. to thirty per cent. in addition to the price which the experienced men who inspected the land had found is the price which the tenants to whom this land is to be distributed can afford to pay.”

I gave the Parliamentary Secretary a few instances from my own constituency of the condition of affairs that existed there, and I mentioned the particulars of estates something on the same lines that Deputy Clery did a few minutes ago where unfortunate tenants were thrown out on the roadside to die and the estates were afterwards taken over by the Land Commission at three or four times their actual value and tenants put into them. The best tenants in them are after five years now owing two years' arrears. The result will be that some future Government will have [2334] to send down its inspectors again to re-value the estate and fix a rent that the tenants should and can pay, and the taxpayers of the Free State will have to make up the balance whilst the landlords will have gone off with the loot. A Department that acts like the Land Commission has acted is not acting in the interests of the people of this country, and a Department that acts in that way should not have any Vote passed for it in this House. In respect of 200 appeals lodged before the famous Judicial Commissioner the price fixed by the Land Commission——

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any responsibility for this Commissioner?

Mr. Corry: The Land Commission apparently accepted the increase of rent which proves their responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle: Oh, no.

Mr. Corry: If after the appeal and after the increased rent being put on the Land Commission took over the holding the responsibility rests with them.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Parliamentary Secretary has not responsibility for the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner as such.

Mr. Corry: I am not saying that he has any responsibility for the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is actually criticising the decision of the Commissioner.

Mr. Corry: What I am pointing out is that the decision was given after the inspector had gone down and valued the estate.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us be clear about this. In no sense is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. Is not that the position?

Mr. Roddy: Yes.

Mr. Little: May I point out to you [2335] that in subhead A—Salaries—the name of the Judicial Commissioner is mentioned? It is true that no salary is attached to his position, but that is owing to peculiar circumstances. It is because he is getting a pension. He is actually on this Vote.

An Ceann Comhairle: No. The salary of the Judicial Commissioner is a charge on the Central Fund.

Mr. Roddy: The Judicial Commissioner is paid out of the Central Fund. The Judicial Commissioner is a High Court judge and as such cannot be criticised in this House.

Mr. Little: There is a difficulty. If the particular Judicial Commissioner were not getting his pension and was getting no salary in respect of this job, if he were a Judicial Commissioner being paid in the ordinary way, then his salary would appear, for the office actually is under the Land Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle: The very words “Judicial Commissioner” would appear to indicate the existence of a person whose salary is on the Central Fund and he acts in a judicial capacity. The intention of the statute creating him and the result of his salary not being here on the Central Fund is that he has the status of a High Court judge and his decisions are not open to criticism in this House in this fashion. There is a method of indicting a judge, but this is not the particular fashion.

Mr. Little: The only point is his name should not appear at all. In analogous cases in other Votes the names of the judges are not mentioned. His name should not be here.

An Ceann Comhairle: His name is not here.

Mr. Little: His office is here.

Mr. Corry: I do not want to say a word about this prince of masons, and I am not criticising him; he is a sore subject.

[2336] An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Corry cannot be disorderly either in a bad tempered or a good tempered way. He cannot work off his particular type of abuse in any way.

Mr. Corry: I am not criticising the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. I am criticising the Department which, after the price of these lands has been increased by £66,000, took over these lands from the gentleman who was going off with the loot and divided them up amongst the unfortunate tenants, and makes them pay £66,000 more than in the judgment of the Land Commission inspectors they should pay. The Land Commission, after sending down their inspectors to value these lands, paid £66,000 more for the lands than their inspectors valued them at. I think that is a greater indictment than the indictment of any judicial commissioner. I think the Land Commission Department which works on those lines are actually creating another land trouble in this country. That is what it will amount to, another land problem to be solved in order that some body of gentlemen might walk off with £66,000 more than the true value of the land. I think the Department that is carrying on in that way does not deserve the confidence or the vote of this House. As I stated, we had hoped that some hastening would be made during the last twelve months in the vesting of holdings. I now realise that any further appeal to the Land Commission Department is hopeless. I realise that those unfortunate tenants that the Land Commission has are to be kept for the next twenty years paying interest in lieu of rent. They are going to be kept hanging up between heaven and earth, so to speak, for the next twenty years without any single reduction to which they are actually and legally entitled being given to them. Those tenants are entitled to the ten per cent. reduction. This House, in its wisdom or otherwise, passed an Act compelling them to purchase, and this House has its remedy. This House can turn down this Vote to-day and can compel that [2337] Department to do its duty if it wishes.

I hope Deputy Nally will have the courage of his convictions seeing the hopelessness of his case. Deputy Nally has come in here from 1922 to 1930 and has voted every year in favour of this Vote. Still he comes up in 1930 and states that a large number of estates in his constituency have been dragged out from 1915, some of them paying interest in lieu of rent. I think it is Deputy Nally's bounden duty to vote in favour of this Estimate being referred back. I hope he will have the courage of his convictions and that those Deputies who spoke here last year, Deputy Hassett, Deputy Nolan and others, who attacked the Land Commission and who have had no reason since to make one statement in favour of that body will vote against the Department's Estimate. I know they cannot make a statement in favour of it to-day and I think it is their duty to vote in favour of this Vote being referred back. I think it is the particular duty of the Farmers' Party in this House who at least are supposed to represent the farmers here, to vote in favour of Deputy Derrig's amendment that this Vote be referred back.

Deputy Heffernan in his speech last year made some extraordinary statement. I do not intend to follow them up to-day very much but if a representative of the farmers in this House considers that the only land that should be divided up is the land alluded to by Deputy Hugh Law a while ago, the reclaimed bogs, and that the real good land should be kept for the bullock, then God help the farmers he represents. I hope he will for once in this House represent the farming community and that he will for once vote that this Estimate be referred back, that he will do some portion of his duty towards the unfortunate unvested tenants. After all he has his duty in that respect and if this land which he claims was divided up with his assistance in the County Tipperary——

[2338] An Ceann Comhairle: He has made no such claim. He has not spoken.

Mr. Corry: Will I quote the Official Debate?

An Ceann Comhairle: Not at all. We must keep to this debate. We are not debating last year's but this year's business.

Mr. Corry: You say there can be no reference to any statement by a Deputy?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is unfortunate in that he is speaking before Deputy Heffernan.

Mr. Corry: I am sorry that I am speaking before him. I always come after him if possible.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot come after him and be before him.

Mr. Corry: I do not want to.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is the Parliamentary Secretary for Lands who is before us now, not the Parliamenetary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs. The Deputy is really. diverting the debate to another channel.

Mr. Corry: If the Ceann Comhairle rules that the Official Report of statements made in this House cannot be quoted in this House I bow to his ruling, but does he make that ruling?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy can keep to the Land Commission Vote if he chooses.

Mr. Corry: Can I quote statements made by Deputy Heffernan last year on the Land Commission Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle: No.

Mr. Corry: I hope that precedent will be always acted on. It has not been acted upon up to the present. Since Deputy Heffernan is out of the question and I cannot quote him I will give a quotation from Volume 29, from Deputy Hassett.

[2339] An Ceann Comhairle: I think not. I think there is enormous scope for debate in this Estimate for £635,981, from sub-head A to sub-head P, and on the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, and it should be sufficient for the Deputy, without going back to other debates and quoting other Deputies' statements.

Mr. Corry: This Land Commission has turned around down in County `Tipperary and given 351 acres of land to a District Justice.

An Ceann Comhairle: When was that done?

Mr. Corry: It was done last year.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are on this Vote now for this year. The Deputy must go forward rather than backwards.

Mr. Corry: We will leave the District Justice in enjoyment of his 351 acres until such time as a national government comes in here and deprives him of it. I hope that Deputy Heffernan will always get his vote. Then we have the question of the untenanted land. We had statements from Deputy Nally here to-day with regard to other large areas, apparently in County Mayo, that are still untenanted, and this House is asked to-day to give a subsidy of £12,000 in order that the grazier to whom that untenanted land is being parcelled out may enjoy it in comfort at a low rent.

If there is a loss of £12,000 each year on this land which is being held by the Land Commission how can they expect the unfortunate tenants to support families on 30 or 40 acres and pay rent and rates for it? This loss of £12,000 bears out my claim to-day that the Land Commission has acquired land at £66,000 over the true value. After all, where is the use of having a Land Commission inspector to value land if he is not able to value it? A Land Commission inspector valued the land and the Land Commission afterwards, apparently in their generosity towards these gentlemen, who in the words of Deputy Clery threw the [2340] tenants out on the roadside to die, decided to hand over £66,000 of public money in addition to the sum that their inspectors valued the land for and they come here and look for £12,000 to make up a deficiency in the untenanted land which is remaining in their hands. There is one cure for the Land Commission Department, I hope they will get that cure here to-day. If this House has the courage of its convictions. they will get that cure. If it has not the courage of its convictions I hope that the people will deal with this House some day when they get a chance.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. T. Sheehy (West Cork): I rise to support the Vote on behalf of the Land Commission. I was astonished in following the speech of the last Deputy, that he made no allusion whatsoever to the gallant work that we had accomplished in the past 50 years to bring this land question into its present happy position. I wish to remind him that it was in the eighties the great battle was fought and won that vested the land of Ireland in the occupier. In 1870 the first Land Bill was passed. It was only to give compensation for disturbance. In 1881 that gallant and brave leader Charles Stewart Parnell and his brave lieutenants, Dillon, Davitt and Biggar——

Mr. Corry: On a point of order, I have just been pulled up by the Ceann Comhairle and prevented from dealing with last year. How is Deputy Sheehy going to deal with 1881? Is that in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I did not hear him dealing with it.

Mr. Sheehy: I am going to remind Deputy Corry of why we are discussing here to-day the question of land tenure in Ireland. Those leaders that I quoted wrung from an unwilling Parliament on the other side a Land Act that secured the tenant farmers of Ireland in their holdings. [2341] This Act of 1881 won the three F's, fixity of tenure, fair rents, and the right to free sale. After that was won it was inevitable that land purchase should follow, and it did follow. The Ashbourne Act came on and it did great work. Then we had the Wyndham Act, and the Act of 1924 put the coping stone on the great work that fixed the Irish tenant farmers in their holdings. Can it be possible that to-day we are going to block by any means the great activities of the Land Commission? I have listened with the most careful attention to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. Any fair-minded Deputy would say that he must be overwhelmed with work. I have often seen Deputies on the other side marching in procession to the Land Commission offices. What took them there if the Land Commission was not doing some good on behalf of the State? Why would they go there if it was hopeless for them to wring anything out of the Land Commission or its officers? I myself come up from a congested district, and no one can say that in the last two and a half years I went to the Land Commission whining or demanding anything. I only went there on two occasions when I had legitimate grievances and they received every attention. I would ask Deputies in all solemnity not to be dragging politices into this vital question of sending back the Irish people to the soil. That is the occupation that the Land Commission have at the present time. Deputy Corry, I am sure, was not alive in my time, but he was represented in the great battle that we fought to save the homesteads over the people's heads. That was a time when you could show heroism. It was not by talking, but by standing up against the rack renting landlords, the crowbar brigade, and the battering ram.

I am proud I have lived to the winter of my life to bear testimony to the grand and gallant leaders of the Land League days. I claim them all as friends. I was loyal to them. I stood by their side till the last landlord handed in his gun. What more could an Irishman do. [2342] To-day a landlord is as scarce as a white blackbird. He can be met no longer in the 26 Counties or in the 32 Counties. After all that we are here to-day discussing our own work. It may be slow, but I appeal to you, Deputies, as young men, to be broad-minded. Do not be too narrow and do not be attempting to take political advantages simply because the Land Commission are not operating at a more rapid rate. It is your duty to line up behind them and assist them rather than criticise. If you have any solid grievances, place them before the Land Commission, and if they do not give you satisfaction you have every opportunity to bring your grievance forward in this House.

Mr. Maguire: If there is one matter in regard to which we would be justified in asking the support of Deputies for this proposal to refer the Estimate back for reconsideration, it is the complete absence of any effort on the part of the Land Commission to deal with congests in every part of the country, but more particularly in the West of Ireland. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state what efforts, if any, the Land Commission have made to deal with the congests in Leitrim. Can he give us the number of people dealt with by the Land Commission under the plan for the relief of congestion? Can he give us the number of persons who were taken from Leitrim, and who were transplanted to other parts of the country? Can he say what number of comparatively large landowners have been taken out of Leitrim and transferred to other parts of the country with the object of leaving farms available for the relief of congestion? The Minister for Agriculture has stated his policy with regard to an economic holding, and he has advocated the creation of 200 acre farms. I do not assume that that will be considered an economic policy from the agricultural standpoint. While we may disagree with the extreme opinion of the Minister for Agriculture as to what constitutes an economic farm, [2343] we have to bear in mind the other extreme, the dire state of congestion which is an important factor, and which constitutes a problem that will have to be solved at some time by the Land Commission.

There is no doubt that the problem of congestion is of national importance and, to be dealt with properly, it must be viewed from a wide national aspect. It is more or less on the same lines as the slum problem in the City of Dublin. That was dealt with from a national point of view, and I think the problem of the congests should be similarly tackled by making any charge involved upon the nation as a whole. There is a certain discrepancy between what it costs to erect a decent standard of house and the economic rent that can be secured for that house; there is a discrepancy in the amount involved. In the case of the city slums the State was asked to make good the discrepancy. There should be a somewhat similar procedure in dealing with congestion. There is no use in attempting to deal with the matter from the purely economic standpoint. There is no use in merely acquiring land where it is available, distributing it amongst the tenants, and expecting that such distribution will result in bringing in the amount of money expended on the whole transaction. That is the attitude usually taken up by the Land Commission, and it is because of that they have made no serious attempt to deal with the congest problem in the West. I know that the Land Commission will point out that in these areas there are no ranches, no very extensive farms to be taken over and, therefore, like Pontius Pilate, they immediately wash their hands of any further responsibility. Were the land there the question would long ago be dealt with according to the Land Commission, and they proclaim that it is not their fault that there are no ranches available. That is the attitude of people who have not seriously tackled this question. I am quite satisfied that if [2344] there were plenty of ranches there, extensive grazing farms, in all probability there would be no congestion.

The scarcity of land is given as an excuse by the Land Commission, but I say there is ample land available. There is at the present time a slump in the price of land that has no parallel within the last half century. Unless we are to assume that conditions are becoming worse in the agricultural line, we must hope that land has reached the bottom price. There are numbers of farmers who have been endeavouring to sell their land for years and they cannot get a purchaser. Now is the time for the Land Commission to take over farms at the current prices and thus facilitate the farmers who are anxious to sell. They could then convert the land, which is the only land available, for the purpose of relieving congestion.

I know it will be said that if the Land Commission purchase the land at the current price, any overhead charges due by way of annuities will have to be made up in the price for the tenant when the lands are subdivided. That price will be prohibitive. That is what I had in mind when I mentioned that this matter would have to be dealt with from the national standpoint. It is a national question, and it will have to be solved by the nation taking its share of responsibility. I think it is the duty of the nation to deal with the slum conditions in the farming community. The Land Commission have on hands numbers of farms in the congested areas and in other parts of the country that they have been offering for sale for years. In many cases annuities have accumulated through no fault on the part of the owner. The Land Commission have been put to the expense of advertising these farms and paying agents, and the result of the whole thing is that no buyer comes forward. The Land Commission point to that as an undesirable state of affairs. They hold that land should be a commercial asset, negotiable, and should be made bear its due responsibilities. In the ordinary [2345] way the Land Commission would be met with no opposition when offering a farm for sale, but at the present time, because underneath it is felt there is a large measure of injustice, opposition exists. The methods of the Land Commission might very well be compared with the methods of the gombeen man or the moneylenders; they could be compared to the methods of men who have tricky and shady ways in all their dealings.

Take the case of farms advertised by the Land Commission for sale because of the owners falling into arrears. The Land Commission are prepared to accept any offer that will meet the amount of arrears due. They leave out the fact that the owner has purchased the farm a number of years back and has paid his annuities, thereby redeeming a certain portion of the charge which the Land Commission has against the land. If these people, through no fault of their own, find themselves embarrassed and in such a position that they cannot pay their land annuities, I ask is it just that the Land Commission should sell them out and sell out these men's entire interest for the balance of the debt? Would it not be more just for the Land Commission to pay the owner of the land the redemption value of what he had paid off in that farm in the shape of annuities and give him some reasonable compensation? In that way the Land Commission will acquire a just and reasonable control over the land and there will be no objection to their selling that land for the relief of congests in the congested districts. These are lines that are available, practical and advisable, and this is the view they should have before them. They have the means to carry out these things if they want to. Along these lines they can at least show their sincerity in an attempt to deal in some way with the problem of congestion in the West of Ireland.

The carrying out of schemes of this sort or making any departure means a large expenditure of money. The Land Commission cannot make [2346] the charge that in any way they have been cribbed in the matter of finance for any needed expenditure. I have heard no Party in this House ever condemn the Land Commission for excessive expenditure where that money has been spent in any reasonable way. I know cases where condemnation has been levied against them and where the expenditure they carried out was not justifiable. That condemnation was justifiable. That condemnation was only in cases where the Land Commission had used public moneys for purposes other than in the public interest—where they have used money for Party purposes. In such cases the Land Commission has been condemned. The Land Commission has only to come forward to this House and make application to carry out the necessary work of the relief of this congestion along the lines that I suggest are workable, or on any other lines that they consider advisable and I am sure this House will put no difficulties in the way of granting them the amount of money that will be needed to bring about, to some extent, an improvement in the conditions of these people.

There has been a good deal of discussion here to-day on the question of the delay investing the land. That is the trouble all over the country. It is a matter on which we have heard fair criticism from all sides of this House. With almost everything connected with Land Commission work we have heard what is rather fair criticism. But especially so in this matter of vesting. It is a pity that greater speed has not been used in vesting those lands and saving the farmers of the country that very excessive charge resulting from the system of interest in lieu of rent. I think, too, that the Land Commission should endeavour to keep their promises to the people and in that respect I must complain that many promises made by the Land Commission on some estates in my locality have been promises that have never been honoured. It is true that these promises were made prior to the Big [2347] War. As a result of the Big War I know that certain promises and certain services were cut off by the Land Commission.

At that time the Land Commission regarded the cutting off of these services and the postponement of the carrying out of these promises as temporary. At any rate promises were made to tenants on various estates on Leitrim as to the improvement of their holdings and these promises have not been kept by the Land Commission. In consequence of that there is still, in my opinion, a debt due to these people by the Land Commission. They made promises to these tenants and they have not yet carried them out. The conditions then existing according to the Land Commission justified advances to these tenants for improvements. These promises, as I have said already, have not been kept. The Land Commission in that matter cannot be relieved of what they considered was their duty at the time. There are a number of people in the County Leitrim, and in one estate in particular, who can produce positive evidence of promises of money made by the Land Commission towards improvements to be carried out to their holdings. These promises where made by the Land Commission inspectors. I consider these promises should be redeemed by the Land Commission. At the time there were difficulties which prevented the Land Commission carrying out these full schemes of work.

I am also aware that when land is being distributed there are in most cases complaints that unfair methods are being used. I am fully aware of the difficulties in most parts of the country in some of the congested areas about the division of any land that is available there, and, at the same time, to divide it so as to give satisfaction to the community generally. I say that because the demand for land is so much in excess of what is available that it is quite beyond human nature almost to give satisfaction. For that reason I am very slow to make charges in the [2348] matter, but I do know after investigation, that in some cases there has been very unfair discrimination and the work of distribution has not been in comformity with what would be the national viewpoint on these matters. It has been generally held, and, I am convinced, with justification, that perhaps the Minister responsible and the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be sympathised with in that connection, inasmuch as most of the official work done by the Department is in the hands of officials who are very unfavourable, as they represent a type of landlordism and represent tyranny of the worst sort. Unfortunately, I am afraid that those are the forces that are making the Land Commission to-day so very unpopular with the community generally.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: There are some matters arising out of this Vote on which I would like to say a few words. There is, first, the question of the Gaeltacht Housing Act. Deputy Derrig asked for information on the matter, and I, too, would like to have some information as to the progress that is being made, if indeed any progress is being made, in putting this Gaeltacht Housing Act into operation. We know that there were hundreds, possibly thousands, of applicants for grants under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. After a considerable time forms of application were issued. After a considerable time, too, these forms of application were filled. It is a little difficult to fill them, as they were all issued in Irish. These forms have been sent to the Land Commission. I think most of them where sent about February and March. Since that time, so far as we know, nothing has been done. I learned on inquiry that four inspectors were being appointed, or, in fact, were about to be appointed, to examine these claims. I should like to say on that matter, that in my opinion four inspectors are not at all sufficient to deal with the work that is to be done. It will take four men a very long time indeed before they are in a position to make any grants. I would [2349] like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how soon he expects the grants will be available for the building of houses under the Gaeltacht scheme. When the Bill was going through the Houses we all anticipated that at least some of the work would be done this summer, but as things appear now, it would seem that the chance of the money being available for building operations this summer is very small indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication of the progress that is being made, and tell us how soon applicants can expect their claims to be examined, in what order they will be examined, what districts will be taken first, what type of applicant will first be considered, and how soon he expects money to be made available under the scheme.

Deputy Clery, I think, referred to the cases of the non-vesting of tenants whose holdings were taken over in some cases so far back as 1914 and 1915. Like Deputy Clery, I know some of these cases, and I cannot understand what is the cause of the delay. I know one particular case, and I have been endeavouring since 1926 or 1927 to induce the Land Commission to settle up a few tenants on a particular estate, and to vest their holdings. After some considerable time and a good deal of investigation on the part of the Department and their inspectors, they prepared a scheme and vested two of the tenants, but there are still three or four tenants in the same position as that in which they were in 1913. I think that the matter will be brought to a head very soon, because one or two tenants, in despair, refused to pay further annuities in the hope that that will be one of the weapons that will bring the Land Commission to a sense of responsibility and get them to act. Generally, that has the effect of getting the Land Commission to take notice of a tenant when he refuses to pay rent any longer. In regard to the particular type of case about which I should like to have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, there are many holders who, for one reason or another, have [2350] allowed their arrears of annuities to accumulate. Decrees have been got against them, a seizure of their stock has been made, and for all practical purposes, the land is derelict. They cannot set the land because, if stock is put upon it, it will be liable to seizure.

I do not know what, if any, arrangement the Land Commission makes in such cases to allow the land to be used, or whether it is their policy or practice to leave a farm derelict and make it so that the tenant, not being able to use the land himself, can take no steps to put in a crop or to stock it. I have been asked by more than one person what is the policy and practice of the Land Commission in regard to this particular type of case, because unfortunately there are quite a number of these cases all over the country. It is not good for the country as a whole, just as it is not good for the tenant, that these farms should be left derelict and unproductive. I do not know whether it is a fact that the Land Commission by their regulations do that, whether their regulations have that effect, but a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary will have the effect of clarifying the position.

I agree with Deputy Clery that if one were to judge by figures alone, as quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, one would get the impression that very great progress indeed was being made, but certainly that does not square with one's own personal experience. I would bear out what Deputy Clery has said in that respect, and especially what Deputy Nally has said in regard to the list of estates which he quoted, in what might be termed his annual speech on the Land Commission. Like Deputy Corry, I hope that Deputy Nally will mark his displeasure with the Land Commission over its delays in dealing with those estates in his constituency by taking the one consistent action which is open to him, namely, voting for this Estimate to be referred back. I have, however, my doubts on that point.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication as [2351] to how what I might call the outside work of the Land Commission keeps pace with the inside work, whether there is any clogging from one side to the other, whether the officials inside are able to keep pace with the work done by the outside staff, or vice versa, or whether there is complete co-ordination between the two. One hears statements from one side or the other that at one time the outside staff cannot go ahead because the indoor staff is unable to keep pace with them, while a contrary opinion is often expressed on the other side. We would like to have some light on that aspect of the Land Commission's activities. Deputy Derrig referred to the good work done by the Land Commission in regard to cases in Carlow where the land was taken over by co-operative committees in 1920, in the Sinn Fein days. He said that they had carried out the work there to the general satisfaction of all concerned, and he gave them credit for the work they had done. I regret, however, to say that my experience in regard to one particular case does not coincide with that of Deputy Derrig.

As every effort has been exhausted to induce the Land Commission to revise the work they have done in this particular case to which I wish to refer, I feel there is no option left to me but to bring the matter before the Dáil. The Parliamentary Secretary is well acquainted with the case to which I refer, because I have brought it to his notice more than once. It is on the border of my constituency, and to me and a great many others the action of the Land Commission appears to have been rather extraordinary. It occurred in the case of the McDonnell estate at Headford. Very briefly I will recite the facts. This estate, which comprised practically all the town of Headford and 600 acres of demesne land in the neighbourhood, was purchased in 1920 by a society called the Killursa Co-operative Farming Society. There were about thirty members, about a third of the tenants, all of them shopkeepers and [2352] traders in the town, and some of them had large farms. Several of them were not tenants on the estate. The land and houses in the town were valued for about £12,000, and the Land Bank advanced a sum of about that amount. The members subscribed a certain amount, but the amount they subscribed, in proportion to the value of the land, appears to me to have been ridiculously small—only £750. Thirteen tenants became guarantors for the balance of the necessary deposit—namely, one-fourth.

In 1922 several of the houses in the town were sold to tenants, houses of a total value of £4,500 and in some cases—and this is particularly to be noted in view of what happened afterwards—the purchase price was as high as 17 years' purchase. The purchasers felt that it was to their advantage to buy the houses, firstly, in order to help to provide the sum necessary to be lodged in connection with the estate, and secondly, they felt that they would be compensated for the high price they were paying by the fact that they would get divisions of land later on. The Land Commission took over this estate in 1925. They paid £10,691 to the Land Bank, and although house property of the value of £4,500 and other assets had been disposed of, including some valuable timber, the mortgage had been reduced only by £2,500 up to 1925.

It would appear from the information at my disposal and from all the particulars available, that the Land Commission did not, as it was bound to do and as one would expect it to have done, make any proper investigation whatever into the constitution and working of the Killursa Land Society either then or subsequently. There have been all kinds of allegations as to irregularities, want of compliance with statutory regulations, irregular audits or no audits whatever. All these have been alleged——

Mr. Roddy: But never substantiated.

[2353] Mr. O'Connell: And substantiated. There is no evidence that the Land Commission investigated them.

Mr. Roddy: There is.

Mr. O'Connell: In any case there is evidence that the rules of the Society were not complied with. There is evidence that their accounts were not audited for four years. There is evidence that they were audited and that the auditor signed them with reservations. There was that evidence in any case. The question of the division of the estate came up and in 1926 a memorial was sent to the Land Commission asking that their inspectors should visit the estate and take over the division of the land themselves. I dare say that was done because of the dissatisfaction that existed in regard to the general working of the Society. It appears that the Land Commission Inspector visited the place at the time, and he gave something in the way of a verbal promise to the tenants that the Land Commission would take over the division of the estate. There is, however, a more definite statement than that, because at that time I was asked to interest myself in the matter, and I wrote to the Land Commission. That was in January, 1927, and I got this reply from the Land Commission:

Department of Lands and Agriculture, Dublin.

8/1/'27.

A Chara,—In reply to your letter of the 6th instant, with enclosure, regarding lands purchased by Killursa Co-operative Farming Society at Headford, I have to inform you that these lands, having been purchased by this Society, through the assistance of the National Land Bank, have become vested in the Land Commission under the provisions of the Land Act, 1923. Several representations have been made here and to the Land Commission regarding the security deposit and the division of the lands. The provisions of the Land Act, 1923, with reference to security deposits [2354] are to be amended and extended by the provisions of the Land Bill at present before the Dáil in a preliminary stage, and when these provisions will have been enacted the deposit of this Society will be dealt with as shall be provided.

Here is the important part of it:

As to the division of the lands, it was open to the Society, had they then thought fit, to have made division of the lands before vesting in the Land Commission. Probably such division was not feasible, but now that the lands are vested in the Land Commission, no division can be made except by the Land Commission, and no member of the Society nor any other person has power or authority to make a division of the land. Representations may be submitted, or schemes proposed, and the Land Commission will consider them, but will not be bound to adopt any schemes or allotments not framed by themselves.

That letter was addressed to me from the Department of Lands and Agriculture in January, 1927. Despite that very definite statement the Land Commission asked the Society to draw up a scheme. I will just read a short paragraph from a letter from one of the people concerned, stating what did happen. He said:—

The Committee thereupon (after being directed to draw up a scheme) convened after two hours' notice, a meeting of the shareholders or depositors and about eight or ten of the other tenants, at which their solicitor's managing clerk read out a long document giving Mr. H. P. McClory, a Galway engineer, certain powers in regard to the preparation of a map, etc. This document was signed by all present, but none of the signatories outside a few members of the Committee can say definitely what Mr. McClory's powers actually were to be. This plan was sent to the Land Commission, [2355] and subsequently two of their inspectors visited the estate. The only local investigation made by these inspectors was to receive a small deputation. Very extensive alterations were made in Mr. McClory's original plan as a result. These alterations were made entirely at the expense of the tenants, other than recognised members of the Society, who by paying large sums for their dwelling-houses, had enabled the Society to stave off early collapse.

As a result the division was made in this form: 24 members of the Society got 428 acres, 29 non-shareholders got 120 acres, 7 congests from an adjoining estate got 30 acres each and there was a grazing division for cows from the town of 30 or 40 acres. In that way the whole 600 acres were disposed of. That scheme of division excited very grave dissatisfaction—so much so that fifty tenants headed by the local clergy, sent a memorial to the Land Commission in February, 1929. I do not want to read this memorial. It is a lengthy one and it sets out in great detail the objections which the local tenants had to the scheme of division which had been accepted by the Land Commission, although it was stated in the letter addressed to me that no division could be made except by the Land Commission themselves. The Land Commission would not, I feel certain, be responsible for the scheme of division which was eventually made and which has now been sanctioned by them, if they had divided the land themselves. I do not believe any official of the Land Commission would be responsible for the kind of scheme that was eventually drawn up.

Just to show the opinion that was held in the locality I will read resolutions that were passed at a Cumann na nGaedheal meeting in the neighbourhood some time in March and published in the local papers. They are as follows:—

[2356] That this general meeting of the Headford Branch of Cumann na. nGaedheal sympathise with and fully support the claims of the tenants who have addressed a memorial to the Minister for Lands relative to the allotment of holdings in the Headford demesne estate on the 12th February.

That we emphatically repudiate the claim of the committee of the Killursa Co-operative Farming Society, who do not represent one-third of the tenants, to be the sole authority in regard to the distribution of holdings.

That we regard the scheme of allotment sponsored by them as an attempt to frustrate the whole purpose of the Land Act of 1923 and a gross betrayal of the general body of tenants.

That approval of such a scheme, if persevered in by the Land Commission, will result in seriously discrediting the Government and be a source of danger to the public peace.

There is undoubtedly a feeling in that district that the Land Commission have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty in the matter because as things have turned out, large shopkeepers in the town of Headford, many of whom have big farms already, have succeeded in getting big divisions of this farm, while others who had at least an equal claim have been put off with three, four or five acres of indifferent land. I do not believe that the Land Commission, if they had the division of the farm, would have dreamt of making such an inequitable division as has been made. The attitude of the Land Commission is set out in letters from them. It is summed up in this way:

As the Society were the real owners of the lands and as there had been no default in payment of the purchase annuity, the Land Commission did not wish to interfere with the Society in their scheme for distribution of the lands, nor had they any power to do so, provided the Land Commission [2357] were satisfied that the prices placed on the divisions were fair, and that the proposed repurchasers were solvent persons, able to work their plots and pay the purchase annuities.

The part I dispute is where they say they have no power to interfere. The tenants got legal advice from an eminent lawyer, Mr. Lavery, K.C., who gave quite a contrary opinion as to the power of the Land Commission in these matters. It would be very strange indeed if the Land Commission, which is paying out a large amount of public money, could have no say whatever if the simple condition that there was a fair price put on the land were carried out— that in other words it did not matter who got the land, whether they were deserving of it or not, they would have no voice whatsoever, and would not insist on having a voice in the division of it, in these circumstances. I think that is an attitude that cannot be maintained. It cannot be held that the Land Commission have no responsibility. Public money is being expended, and steps should be taken to see that the division was equitable. I certainly think that this is a case where there ought to be further action taken by the Land Commission. I think it is a case they should have interfered in, and that they should have taken over the division of the land. There is now at least a strong claim that those tenants who purchased at what would now seem to be exorbitant prices, should get some consideration.

It may be said that these men put their money into the land and took certain risks, that they have got back any money they put down with five per cent. interest, and are at no loss. I repeat that the Society's affairs did not get the investigation they should have got. Various allegations have been made not only regarding the sale of the timber to which I referred but to the sale at practically a quarter of its value of the tolls and customs of the town of Headford. That took place since [2358] the land was vested in the Land Commission. In all its aspects, this appears to me to be eminently a case where there ought to be a very full public investigation of the facts. From the information at my disposal there is very grave discontent, and in the words of the resolution passed at the Cumann na nGaedheal meeting—and they are not revolutionaries—it is a source of danger and a menace to the