INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 21 May 1849)

§ MR. J. STUART
complained that no answer had been given to the objections he had made to this Bill. The Irish Members all supported this Bill; but so they supported a Bill of last year, which had proved a total failure; but when he had objected to that Bill the Irish Members were not disposed to listen to his objections. In point of principle, however, this Bill was more objectionable than the Bill of last year. English Members should, however, attend to this, that it was proposed to have the commissioners under this Bill paid out of the English Exchequer, and that the commissioners so paid were to exercise the powers now exercised by the Lord Chancellor. If the commissioners performed part of the duties of the Lord Chancellor, why not perform the whole of them? The Lord Chancellor ought to point out where it was that the law was defective in supplying those powers which would enable him, by his own act and decision, to facilitate the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland. An hon. Friend of his had observed that the Court of Chancery in that country was a nuisance; and that the most fatal thing that could occur was for an estate to be subject to a receiver of that court; but, if it were so, where, he asked, was the Lord Chancellor, and why did the Court of Chan- 761 cery exist? Surely it was the business of the Court of Chancery to preserve the property of Ireland in a sound and proper state, and prevent it from falling into such a condition as to render necessary the interference of the Legislature by a measure of this kind. It would be the duty of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to satisfy the House, why the Irish Court of Chancery, under the presidency of the existing Lord Chancellor, was in such a state that the receivers were obstructing the sale and mismanaging these incumbered estates; then, if the receivers were under the control of the Lord Chancellor, he ought to explain why he permitted them to neglect their duty, and the Exchequer of England to be saddled with the expense of maintaining a commission to discharge that duty; and, moreover, if the Court of Chancery in Ireland were in such a disgraceful state, why the responsibility was not made to rest upon the head of that court. He should much wish to hear from Her Majesty's Government some apology for the position in which the Court of Chancery was placed under the auspices of the learned and eminent individual who now presided over it. His (Mr. Stuart's) great and primary objection to the Bill was, that it appointed commissioners to do what the Lord Chancellor ought to do. The first eight clauses were occupied with creating the office of commissioners, and he should have felt it to be his duty to object to and take the sense of the House upon them, were it not on account of the great chorus of approbation with which the Irish Members had received the Bill. He would not, therefore, waste the time of the House by dividing upon them in Committee. Other clauses, authorising the commissioners to make rules, and defining the jurisdiction of the commissioners, were liable to the same objection; but he should defer pressing his opposition until the third reading of the Bill, when he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it.

§ COLONEL RAWDON
thought it only just to the Government to read a short letter he had received that day from Dublin from a gentleman having great experience in such matters, and in the management of property by the Court of Chancery in Ireland. That letter stated "the Bill for the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland will be one of the most beneficial measures for that country which has been yet introduced. It is prepared with such wonderful clearness, and the provisions of it are so 762 simple, that it is unnecessary for me to trouble you with any observations in reference to it." He (Colonel Rawdon) also, from all he had heard, believed the Bill would be attended with great advantage to Ireland.

MR. SHAFTO ADAIR
said, even if Her Majesty's Government should decline to reply to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Newark, still he should consider that the failure of the Incumbered Estates Bill of last year was a sufficient justification for the present measure, and that such a delegation of powers as was here proposed was not only absolutely necessary, but that it would prove highly beneficial. The course they had pursued on the last occasion was sufficient to convince him that an adherence to existing forms, in such a case as the present, would be exceedingly inconvenient. The intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill, he thought, were abundantly plain, if it were true, as he had heard, that they proposed to send over Sir Edward Sugden as one of the commissioners under this measure—a gentleman whose high legal knowledge and experience in the Irish Court of Chancery would be sufficient to ensure for the working of this Bill the confidence and support of the Irish people.

§ MR. F. FRENCH
had been opposed to the measure when it was first introduced; but had found then, as since, that the opposition of Irish Members was always ineffectual when brought into competition with English prejudices. The objection he entertained to this measure was the same as he had stated in regard to that of last year—that it would injuriously affect the proprietors of land, and those who were otherwise dependent on the property, by bringing it into the market at a time when it would not realise anything approximating to its real value, nor sufficient to pay off the incumbrances. The Bill professed to be based on the groundwork laid down in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. But the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was not for the mere purpose of forcing estates into the market, without providing for the interests of all parties, which this did; and herein consisted the difference between the two measures.

§ SIR J. B. WALSH
did not anticipate any great benefits to result from this measure. The Bill of last Session was ineffectual; and this Bill, he believed, would 763 share precisely the same fate. It appeared to him that it would be wholly inoperative. He had no idea that any sales of estates would take place in the present state of Ireland. It appeared to him that in Ireland generally, and especially in the distressed districts, which it was the professed object of the House to relieve, it would be as impracticable at this moment to sell estates, and as absurd to attempt to do so, as it would be to sell a house by auction while it was on fire. He did not believe I that the commissioners, acting under the maxims of law, and the received principles of equity, would offer to sell the land at a total sacrifice of the property; and unless they proposed to do so, he did not see where they were to find purchasers in the present state of Ireland. But even if the commissioners were enabled to effect sales under the most advantageous circumstances—that was, to dispose of the property to persons possessed of abundant capital, and who were prepared to fulfil, in the cant language of the day, their duty as landed proprietors to those upon the property, he doubted whether the new proprietors would be found to act differently from the old, unless a total change was effected in the circumstances in which the distressed districts were placed, and in the difficulties with which the proprietors had to contend. He had another and a very strong objection to the Bill, and that was with reference to the arbitrary powers it conferred upon the commissioners. He admitted that, considering the destructive and anarchical principles which had been pressed upon the adoption of the Government by some of their usual supporters in reference to this subject, the Conservative party were so far indebted to them for their adherence to the rights of property as they at present existed, and for their declaration that they contemplated no violent and arbitrary change in the law itself. But while he gave them credit to that extent, he must at the same time say that the proposed commission introduced very dangerous principles, which it behoved all who loved liberty, property, and order, attentively and jealously to watch. Now, he was no Whig, but he had as much love of justice, and as much hatred of arbitrary power, as any Whig of the days of Charles II. It was true there was now little danger to be apprehended from the arbitrary power of a Sovereign; but there was quite as much tyranny in the arbitrary power of a democracy. What was the nature of this tri- 764 bunal before which the property of one portion of the country was to be brought? The commission was anomalous in its character, the powers intrusted to it were of a most arbitrary and unprecedented character, and it would be composed of men necessarily dependent upon Government, and expectants of their favour; and it was to a fleeting and ephemeral commission of this kind that it was now proposed to give the power of controlling a large portion of the landed property of Ireland. It would be, of course, impossible to have the same security in dealing with a commission intrusted with such large discretionary powers, as they would have in dealing with the regularly constituted authorities of the country. Seeing, therefore, that the measure involved the delegation of such large discretionary powers, he hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would be able to give the House some positive assurance that the execution of these powers would be intrusted, if not to the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir E. Sugden), to whom allusion had been made, at least to persons of the same class, and possessing the same high character, and great legal knowledge.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
said, the real question was, whether the state of Ireland was such as to demand some extraordinary remedy for the purpose of securing the sale of land, and putting estates that were greatly incumbered into the hands of other persons, who would be enabled not only to do their duty to the land, but also to the persons upon the land. If the House were dealing with an ordinary state of circumstances, he would admit the justice of the remarks that had been made by the hon. Baronet: he would admit that it might be well, either to leave the matter in the hands of the Court of Chancery, as at present constituted, or to make such amendments in that court as to render it more fit for the exercise of its powers. But, as the House bad already decided, on the second reading of this Bill, that there was a state of circumstances in Ireland at present requiring an extraordinary remedy, he must say, that, in his opinion, the question for the House to consider in Committee was—not whether they should reject altogether the principle of the Bill, and leave the matter in the hands of the Court of Chancery; but whether the machinery for carrying into effect the views of the House, and the rules and modes of proceeding proposed, were either sufficiently strong, or were more arbitrary than was necessary, 765 for the purpose. This was the matter upon which the Committee should now deliberate, and not upon the general propositions which had been discussed by the hon. Baronet. He wished only further to say, that he did not think that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in expressing his assent to this measure, had either shown, on the one hand, an undue attachment to those forms of proceeding with which he had long been conversant; or, on the other, a wish to divest himself of any of the responsibility and labour which belonged to his high station. His (Lord J. Russell's) belief was, from all the correspondence he had had with him upon the subject, and all that he had seen of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that, in agreeing in the opinion that had been expressed, that it was desirable that some extraordinary means should be adopted for securing the speedy sale of incumbered estates, and more especially for the purpose of giving good Parliamentary titles to land in Ireland, that learned Lord had been actuated solely by patriotic motives, and not by those which had been attributed to him. The hon. Member for Roscommon had said, that the Bill had been devised in conformity with English prejudices. He (Lord J. Russell) was hardly prepared to admit the truth of that assertion. The first person he had heard make the declaration that there should be a great change in the proprietors of Ireland, in order to bring the country into a state of prosperity was a gentleman who gave evidence before a Committee of that House in 1832—a gentleman who was well known to most Members of that House, and who was as good an authority on Irish matters as any Irishman could well be—he meant Mr. More O'Ferrall, the present Governor of Malta. Mr. O'Ferrall did not suggest any mode of carrying into effect his proposal; but he gave it as his decided opinion, that there must be some means found of introducing a change of proprietors before they could hope for any permanent improvement in Ireland.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
designated the Bill a sweeping measure, inasmuch as it entrusted to a commission a very arbitrary power over every estate in the country which was indebted in almost the smallest amount. He thought the House ought to know who the commissioners were to be; and if his views met with the concurrence of his countrymen, he would move, at once, that the House do adjourn upon the 1st Clause; 766 because nothing could be more unjust than to invest in three unknown men powers similar to those exercised by the Autocrat of Russia. Powers were entrusted to them to decide questions of law, questions of title, and questions involving the claims of incumbrancers; and they were also to frame rules for their guidance, subject to the approval of the Privy Council. Sir Edward Blakeney, the commander of the forces in Ireland, was one of the members of the Privy Council; and he (Colonel Dunne) should like to know whether such a gentleman was a fit person to decide upon the rules in an important case of that kind. He confessed that he would have more confidence in the Court of Chancery than in the Privy Council, particularly as he was ignorant of the names of the commissioners. Various clauses of the Bill were almost unintelligible. He should like an explanation to be given of the meaning of the 17th, 19th, and 24th Clauses.

The CHAIRMAN
suggested that it was very desirable to take the clauses seriatim, commencing with the first.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
would bow to the decision of the Chairman, and postpone any observations he had to make upon the clauses until they severally came before the House. But he must again object to the injustice of the Bill, and deny that the present circumstances of Ireland afforded any justification for its enactment. Land could not now be sold in the sister country except at a price considerably under its real value, although a sale under the Court of Chancery conferred as safe and good a title as any that could be granted by Parliament. The difficulty in Ireland, was not as to the title, but as to the registry of judgments and deeds. He begged to remind the House that there was a court of equity exchequer in Ireland, the cost of which was 15,000l. a year, for disposing of the small number of 186 causes; and he did not see why the remembrancer of that court should not do the duty of a third commissioner under the present Bill.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the discussion that evening had placed the subject in a clear and intelligible manner before the House when he alleged that it was unconstitutional to appoint three commissioners under the Bill. He (Mr. Grogan) admitted, with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the state of Ireland was extraordinary, and that it called for extraor- 767 dinary measures; but he thought that if the objections which existed to the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery were facilitated and eased, that that court might be made an exceedingly competent jurisdiction for the carrying out of the Incumbered Estates Bill. He admitted that much apprehension would be removed if the commissioners were named in one of the clauses; but he contended that, supposing the best men to be appointed, they would, after all, be the nominees of the Government, and such an absolute and uncontrolled power as that over the property of Ireland ought not to be vested in any Administration. He believed the Bill would be inefficient in some instances, and by far too efficient in others. The powers conferred upon the commissioners were so strong, that, generally speaking, there would not be a single landed proprietor in Ireland who would be considered safe, because, upon the application of any one creditor the commissioners could investigate and sell. In this respect it would be too efficient. It would be inefficient, because alone and unsupported it must fail, unless some means were found for obtaining purchasers. At present purchasers were not to be had; and great injury must necessarily be done to incumbered proprietors and mortgagees, if property were forced upon the market, and sold, as it was now selling in one or two cases, for eleven years' purchase. Lately, the property of a noble Earl had been divided into twenty-four lots, for the purpose of enabling persons of small property to purchase; but every one of these lots had remained unsold. If, indeed, sales could be facilitated by procuring purchasers, and if the New Poor Law Amendment Act could be so framed as to give confidence and satisfaction, not alone to the present proprietors, but to the new purchasers, then a measure of the present kind would abolish expensive processes in the Court of Chancery, and great good might result.

§ SIR L. O'BRIEN
thought the Bill was an improvement upon that of last year, and for the improvement they had to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. But still he thought they should be informed who were the commissioners about to be appointed. He would be satisfied with the Lord Chancellor, or the Master of the Rolls. But he would unite with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite, if he divided the House upon any stage of the Bill, unless they were in- 768 formed of the names of the commissioners. He thought the Government could have no difficulty in so doing. They had done it in the matter of the Poor Law Commissioners last year, and the names were approved of by the House. He had spoken upon the subject to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he did not then see in his place, and the noble Lord had given him to understand that there would be no objection, upon the part of the Government, to give the names. There was another matter upon which he should offer a few observations. The House was labouring under a delusion, if they expected that purchasers who owed no money would be found for the estates thrown into the market. The regular customary course, when a man purchased an estate, was to borrow a large portion of the purchase-money on mortgage of the property. The estate became thus at once incumbered to a certain extent. Then came the desire of immediate improvement, to effect which more money should be borrowed. Irish proprietors were blamed for not availing themselves of the money offered on loan by Government; but the fact was, that they were unwilling to contract any further engagements. He himself did not wish to incumber his estates by accepting those loans, and they really appeared to him to be a regular trap laid for the Irish landlords; for, after the money had been offered, and the debt contracted, the Government came forward with those stringent enactments to compel sales, and the unfortunate borrowers would be sold out. He knew the names of many who were spoken of as about to be sold out under this Incumbered Estates Bill, in consequence of their having contracted debts for the purpose of effecting improvements. He admitted that facilities for transferring land in Ireland would be very useful, and were much wanted; but he wished them to be cautious in the measures they adopted. As to creating a small resident proprietary, they would not succeed. A man having a sum of money sufficient to purchase a small holding would get no more than four or five per cent for it, by laying it out in the purchase of land, whereas by taking a farm he could make twenty per cent of it.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He confessed that he had not sufficient confidence in the Government to leave the nomination of the commissioners exclusively in their hands, and that his object 769 in submitting this Motion was to obtain the names of the parties in question.

§ MR. J. O'CONNELL
said, that so far as he had been able to ascertain, Ireland was decidedly in favour of the present measure. He felt surprise that any Irish Member should oppose a measure which was likely to effect such general benefit in the sister country.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, that the Lord Chancellor and the Barons of the Exchequer had quite as large powers of sale as any that were given to the proposed commissioners; but in the Master's office the sale was frequently postponed, to the great detriment of the estate. He knew one case in which the inheritor had obtained a postponement of the sale six several times, on the ground of an expected letter from Lord Gough, promising to purchase the estate when he came to Ireland.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
knew that the power existed; but it was exercised by those who had a knowledge of law, and were governed by strict rules. He knew nothing of the particular case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but it appeared that the hon. Gentleman and the Master in Chancery were at issue as to the proper course to be pursued. The discretionary power of postponement was very often exercised most beneficially.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, that, in his opinion, the master had no discretion at all; and he believed that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor and the Barons of the Exchequer to alter that practice.
After a short conversation,

§ COLONEL DUNNE
withdrew his Amendment.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it was intended to give a salary of 3,000l. a year to the chief commissioner, and 2,000l. to each of the other commissioners. The entire expenses under the Act would not be much. There would be, in addition to the three commissioners, a secretary, some clerks, and one or two messengers. The expense, therefore, would not he at all considerable, but, whatever its amount, it was to be paid out of the public exchequer.

§ MR HENLEY
said, it would be desirable to know the aggregate amount. Would there not be travelling expenses?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he could not state the exact amount. As for travelling expenses, he believed there would 770 not be any; hut if any necessity for travelling should arise, then the expenses incurred only would be allowed. The salaries were to be a net remuneration.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
moved that the Court of Chancery he substituted for the Privy Council.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, he had intended to move that the rules be subjected to the revision of the Judges.

§ MR. E. B. ROCHE
opposed such a proposition altogether, as inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, the object of which was to get rid of the Court of Chancery, which his hon. and gallant Friend now sought to bring into play under the Bill.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
defended the clause, observing that power was given to alter the rules from time to time, as the commissioners should think right.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that it was thought necessary that the commissioners should have the assistance of counsel, and hence they were invested with the powers of a court of equity.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
hoped that some means would be taken for securing a due consideration of hostile claims to ownership, where such were well founded.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the commissioners would have power to decide between conflicting titles. They were not to be bound by mere assertion, or their powers would be nullified in every instance. They would have the power of sending issues for trial, and also of submitting cases to the courts of law, where the questions raised were such as they could not determine. Without such power, it would be impossible to secure the working of the Bill.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, he did not think that it would be possible to effect sales under this commission, except in large parcels, and to joint-stock companies. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Why?] One reason was the large size of the unions—of itself sufficient to prevent individuals of moderate means from investing their capital in land. Then the 771 drainage operations, as now carried on, affected more than one estate, and would cause the parties desiring to purchase to look to the state of the surrounding lands. For the sake of facilitating large purchases by companies, it might be desirable to allow the proprietors of unincumbered estates the opportunity of selling by this commission, as these estates might be locally connected with others under incumbrance. He was anxious also to introduce a clause giving life tenants the power of selling a portion of the estate, to pay debts secured on the inheritance. There were other interests in Ireland—those for terms of thirty or forty years, which ought also to have the benefit of this commission.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
had considered the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and feared it was inadmissible; for it would have this effect, that any person might create an incumbrance on his estate, and get it sold by the commission, or sell it almost without incumbrance. This would open a door to fraud, as it might he done by parties having defective titles. Should it afterwards appear, on the working of the Bill, that it might be extended beneficially to other parties, there would be no objection to doing so. As to the interests for terms, such as church leases for twenty-one years, he would consider the proposition of the hon. Gentleman before the third reading of the Bill.

§ Sir A. BROOKE
inquired if this Bill would give any power to landowners to sell and discharge their incumbrances, still reserving the rights over their estates which this Bill secured to those coming under the commission?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it was not contemplated to make any alteration in the law as it stood in this respect. The next clause, the 17th, clearly defined what was "being subject to any incumbrance."

§ MR. SADLEIR
feared that great obstruction would be offered to the sale of estates, by including certain interests in the Bill, and excluding others. In purchasing an estate parties would not like to deal with the commission for the fee-simple, and then have to settle with a number of middlemen for their interests.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
promised to consider the suggestion.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
thought it would be necessary to introduce a clause for the purpose of preventing parties having titles 772 not worth a year's purchase from effecting sales under the commission.

§ MR. TURNER
moved a proviso to the effect that no order of sale should be made on the application of any owner or incumbrancer the value of whose interest was not equal to the amount of the incumbrance; nor unless the whole of the incumbrances amounted to two-thirds the value of the estate.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
hoped this suggestion would not be adopted, as it would involve the necessity of a previous inquiry as to the respective values of the estate and the incumbrances, which in the depressed state of landed property in Ireland, was perhaps now not worth more than half its amount when the mortgages were effected. The necessary result would be to prevent sales in a great many cases. It would be the duty of the commissioners to look something beyond the technical law in these cases, and to regard what might be morally due; hence they ought to have a very large discretion.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
could not see how the proviso of his hon. and learned Friend could have the effect mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. He thought the proviso would have the effect of preventing fraud on the one hand, and on the other hand of preventing the sale of estates per force.

§ MR. GROGAN
hoped the hon. and learned Solictor General would reconsider the question, and consent to the insertion of the proviso, which would operate as a due protection to the rights of parties interested in the property, without seriously clogging the working of the measure.

§ MR. TURNER
did not think the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General had at all weakened the grounds for adopting this proviso; but he (Mr. Turner) would entirely leave it to the House to deal with his proposition as it thought St.

§ MR. GROGAN
would strongly recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to alter the latter part of the proviso so as to limit the powers of the commissioners, of ordering sales, to cases where the incumbrances did not exceed one-half the entire value of the estate. As the proviso now stood, two-thirds of the value was the limit, and he wished one-half to be substituted in its place.

§ MR. TURNER
would accede to the recoramondation 773 to alter the "two-thirds" to "one-half," and would divide the Committee on the proviso as so amended.

§ MR. GROGAN
conceived it was obvious that the strong powers given under this Act might, by a litigious party, he misapplied, to annoy a co-inheritor or co-proprietor in his estate. He wished to know if the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) would introduce a provision that in such case the commissioners should have power to give penalty costs?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
apprehended that in such a case the commissioners would have the power to refuse the application, with costs; hut not to inflict costs as a penalty.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
said, he wished to know how his hon. and learned Friend meant to deal with the case of leases created after the incumbrance where the estate was not sufficient to meet all the demands upon it. In that case the incumbrance would over-ride the tenancies on lease created subsequent to it. That would be a great hardship in the case of bonâ fide tenants. What he should therefore propose would be this, that power should be given to ascertain whether the lands were let at a fair rent, and upon proper terms, and upon its being ascertained that this was the case that the tenant should be protected against the subsequent purchaser.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that such was the object of the clause; but if that meaning was not clear enough from the words as they stood, he would un- 774 dertake to introduce others which would make it plainer.

§ MR. MONSELL
was afraid, that unless the provisions of the 38th Clause were extended, the object of the Bill would be defeated. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to appoint a commission for the purpose of facilitating the sale of incumbered estates, and proposed also to leave the Court of Chancery the same power it had at present over those estates. His hon. and learned Friend proposed that in case a suit should have been commenced in the Court of Chancery, and the incumbrancer therereby signified a wish that the estate should be sold, the commissioners should not have the power to take the initiative, but that initiative must he taken by the incumbrancer or owner for the sale. It would be important to allow the commissioners to take the initiative, or to suspend the power of the Court of Chancery so far as related to the sale of incumbered estates. It was not an answer to his objection to say, that self-interest would induce parties to go before the commission, instead of before the Court of Chancery. He would take the case of the only incumbrancer being a solicitor—as a solicitor he would prefer the most expensive court, the Court of Chancery; and the owner of the estate, being anxious to stick to it as long as he could, would not go before the commissioners. In that case, though they had a cheap tribunal established in the country, it would be the real interest of the incumbrancer—he being a solicitor—and it would be the supposed interest of the owner, to defeat the object of the Bill.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
really thought that the plan suggested by his hon. Friend was not quite consistent with the scope and object of the Bill. The scope and object of the Bill was to sell estates on application; and his hon. Friend proposed that they should make an exception to that rule in the particular cases of suits in the Court of Chancery, where application had already been made for a sale under that court. He did not feel that they could make such an exception. He believed there were very few suits instituted in the Court of Chancery where there was not some person who desired a sale as speedily as possible, and that person had the power to apply to the commis- 775 sioners; but if there were the ease of a person who had an estate more than sufficient to pay the mortgage, and there was an incumbrancer who, from interested motives, was anxious to sweep up the equity of redemption in costs in the Court of Chancery, and the owner of that equity of redemption had no objection, he (the Solicitor General) did not see any reason why they should not be indulged, or why they should be compelled to adopt a different course of proceeding. Where there was a decree for a sale, the party might apply to the commissioners, and have the estate sold at once.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman argued the question as if no person could be interested in the sale of an incumbered estate but the creditors and nominal proprietor. He did not think there could be an objection to introduce a few words into the clause for the purpose of effecting that which would be a great improvement—namely, to sell the bankrupt estates in Ireland. There were many cases in which the creditors on the property, the inheritor, and solicitor, were all interested in continuing the property in the Court of Chancery, though no other person was interested in keeping it there. On the contrary, the tenants on the property, and the tenants on adjacent estates, and all persons interested in the improvement of the country, must be desirous to see those incumbered estates brought under the operation of the commission. As no reason had been stated to show that those bankrupt estates in the Court of Chancery should not be brought under the commission, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce words into the clause to meet the difficulty.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
would endeavour to introduce some words to meet the objection of the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. SADLEIR
was sorry to hear that the receiver was to be continued after the proceedings for the sale had been instituted, because he thought the commissioners should be enabled to bring the property to sale under the most advantageous circumstances. Nothing could be more deteriorating to a property than to keep it in the miserable condition which an estate must exhibit as long as one of the court receivers was managing it.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the 776 object of the clause was that the commissioners should not manage the property at all, but sell the property as speedily as possible.

§ MR. MONSELL
remarked, that there was extreme difficulty in Ireland in obtaining writs of partition, and the proceedings were extremely cumbersome. He thought it would be advisable to facilitate the division of unincumbered estates, and the exchange of properties, in a cheaper way than those proceedings can now be effected, and that, both parties consenting, the division or exchange of property might be effected under this Bill, even where properties were not incumbered. The principle had been already adopted in this country in the Commons Inclosure Act; and he thought it would be most useful if proprietors in Ireland whose estates were not incumbered should be allowed facilities for making exchanges and for the division of properties.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that no doubt it would be very desirable to facilitate the partition of estates, and there was a clause to that effect in the Bill, when the estate was encumbered. He was, however, of opinion, that the present Bill should be confined to incumbered estates, though hereafter he hoped to see the principle now introduced extended to other cases.

§ MR. SADLEIR
was sorry to see, from the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, that there seemed to be a disposition to hold out a bonus to Irish proprietors to incumber their estates, as otherwise they could not enjoy the facilities which this Bill was calculated to afford.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government did not underrate the value of the proposal made, but there were several other Bills in contemplation, which it was exceedingly desirable to have introduced and passed, in some of which the point might be more regularly introduced.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
complained of the limited right of appeal given.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
wished to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with the case of a man whose estate was sold against his will and interest?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, if 777 the commissioners decided against the party, he would have an appeal to the Privy Council; and if they also decided against him, it was clear that there should be some limit put to the litigation, or the proceedings would have no end. He admitted that both hearings might be decided erroneously; but then there had been many decisions, even of the House of Lords, that were now admitted to have been wrong.

§ MR. S. MARTIN
said, he supposed the case of a party who was absent, and therefore unable to make out his title. If the sale were hurried over, and the proceeds divided, such a person would be defrauded in consequence of having no power of appealing.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
admitted that such a case was possible, though it was hardly probable, and there might be a hardship in it; but the House should take care, in order to provide against a merely possible case, not to injure and incumber the whole Act.

§ MR. TURNER
said, that in these cases the right of appeal was now for the first time entirely taken away.

§ MR. PAGE WOOD
said, the objection applied to the principle of the Bill, rather than to this particular clause. He would remind the House that an appeal to the House of Lords often required a period of two years to have it settled; and if such an appeal were to be given in this instance, where he would ask, would be the use of the Bill at all? There could be no question but that if any reasonable doubt were raised before the commissioners, they would be most ready, as any judge would be in a similar case, to grant an appeal.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S.	Magan, W. H.
Dunne, F. P.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Vesey, hon. T.
Grace, O. D. J.	TELLERS.
Grogan, E.	Martin, S.
Jones, Capt.	Turner, G. J.