OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. (Hansard, 3 July 1882)

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
, in calling attention to Sections 44, 47, and 48 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and in asking Her Majesty's Government how appellants were to proceed to secure the attendance of three Commissioners to hear appeals, said, that cases had been heard on appeal in Londonderry and other places before only two Judges of the Land Court—Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Mr. Litton, Mr. Vernon being left in Dublin to attend to business there. In one case the counsel for the appellant asked that the three Judges should be present; but Mr. Justice O'Hagan said it was impossible for all to be present, and that there was a discretion given to them by the Act to sit with two Judges. This was a very important question. When the Court was established it was considered most desirable that one Judge should know something of the value of land, and hence Mr. Vernon was appointed; but according to what had taken place in the country he might not be required to sit at all on appeals. The Act gave appellants the right to have their cases heard by three Commissioners, and his complaint was that the Commissioners placed too liberal a construction on the proviso made as to the "unavoidable" absence of one of their number. It was now the rule rather than the exception for the Court to consist of two Commissioners instead of three, and the result was that some of the decisions lately given had failed to satisfy the litigants. Another cause of dissatisfaction was the disregard of the opinion of the "independent valuer," to whom the Commission were authorized by the Act to refer for a statement of facts and circumstances to enable the Commission to form a judgment. He would mention one case. The rental of an estate in the North of Ireland, which was £726, was reduced by the Sub-Commissioners to £562. On appeal the Commissioners appointed an independent valuer, who estimated £675 as the fair and proper rental for the estate. The two legal Commissioners in the absence of the agrarian Commissioner ignored this valuation, and further reduced the rental to £553. In a second case, the rental 1233 was £470, reduced by Sub - Commissioners to £352. The independent valuer's report put it at £466; but the Commission, on appeal, fixed £368. That brought him to his Question. How were these appellants to secure the services of the three Commissioners to which they were entitled under the Act?

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
said, that, as to the cases which had been referred to, he could not form any opinion about them without knowing all the circumstances. He would give the information with which he had been furnished by the Commissioners. They said that the greater portion of the appeals were heard by the three, but in the country towns some appeals had latterly been heard by two of their number, and this was done under the powers of the Act of 1881. The cause of Mr. Vernon's absence was very urgent business of the Land Court to be transacted in Dublin, and this brought the question within the 42nd section of "unavoidable absence." He was inclined to agree that there would be an objection if all these appeals were heard by the two legal members of the Land Court, and without the presence of the Commissioner who was not a lawyer. The explanation, however, was that which he had just given to the House, and the Commissioners believed that they had acted within the terms of the Act.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
said, the explanation given by the Lord Privy Seal was most unsatisfactory.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
said, he had no other to offer.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
said, the Act of 1881 had been entirely altered.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
In the view of the Commissioners they were within the terms of the Act.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
said, that they were told in both Houses of Parliament, when the Act was passed, that all appeals would be heard by three Commissioners. In many cases the Act had been altered. It was a most extraordinary thing that the two legal Commissioners should sit in the country and leave the only Commissioner in Dublin who knew anything about the valuation of land. The question should be tried whether the two legal Commissioners 1234 had a right to go into the country and try appeals upon the question of the value of land, and leave the lay Commissioner in Dublin to transact the legal business. He hoped that his noble Friend would raise the question again.