§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the case of Fyffe v. Beatty, in the "Irish Law Times" of 15th instant, where the county court judge of the county Fermanagh applied to the Land Commissioners to pay a valuer appointed by him to assist him, but was informed that they had no power to do so, and that the expense must be borne by the litigants; whether it is the case, as reported, that he then remonstrated with the Commissioners on this decision, and requested to be provided with a competent valuer, as was done in the cases of sub-commissions and other county courts, but was informed that all their valuers were engaged; whether this was the result of the joint action of all the Commissioners, or the act of Mr. Commissioner Litton alone; and, whether the county court judge strongly animadverted on the position in which he was left, and the injustice to litigants?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, I have seen the report referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, and am informed that it is correct. The Land Commissioners have no power to pay a valuer appointed by a County Court Judge. The case of a County Court Judge requiring the services of an independent valuer is provided for by the 37th section of the Land Act. Under that section the costs must be paid by one of the parties or by both conjointly. The Land Commissioners have been most anxious to assist the County Court Judges, and relieve them from the necessity of employing valuers, and whenever the services of a Court valuer has been available they have been placed at the disposal of the Judges; but for some time back they have not found it possible to spare any of their valuers, as the services of all have been imperatively required in the appeal cases. The Land Commission acted in this matter on the general instructions of all the Commissioners. I see from the number of The Law Times referred to by the hon. Member, that the County Court Judge is reported to have made certain animadversions, which, however, appeared to be directed against the law rather than against the Land Commission.