notice was given, and was informed that there were certain rules published in newspapers which, he supposed, were never looked at by anybody. This kind of proceeding reminded him of a saying of Daniel O'Connell that the best way of keeping a secret was to put it into the Dublin Gazette. If the Amendment was to be adopted he hoped that the rules of the Court would be so altered that the notice might be a real one. *THE EARL OF WESTMEATH inquired how far the Amendment would go. If any objection was taken by the remainderman would they have any further redress? LORD DUNBOYNE replied that the Land Commissioners might take notice of the objection. It was true they did not act in a judicial capacity, but he thought they might act judicially in so far as they could interfere and stop the sale. That was the intention of the Amendment. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON asked whether the Amendment would not bring the remainder-man under the zones? If so, it would be a most disastrous result. He was not a lawyer, but he was informed by legal friends that such would be the case, and if it were so, and the remainder-man were brought into these transactions, they would have this obstruction at the outset of every sale. He was sure the noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not wish that. LORD ASHBOURNE said he did not think it would be held to be obstruction for them to give every legitimate notice that could be required, to let persons know that their interests might be affected. As he understood the Amend ment, the object of it was to secure that adequate notice should be given, so far as possible, to those whose interests would require such legitimate protection as might be afforded by letting them know what was going on. But if the noble Lord looked at the closing part of the clause, he would find that his Amendment was unnecessary, and that abundant care was taken that the attention of the Land Commissioners should be directed to the necessity of giving notice by means of advertisement of their proceedings. The Earl of Belmore. LORD DUNBOYNE asked and obtained leave to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. Clause 18. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert at Clause 18, page 11, line 13, after" 1896," the words "which interest. shall be at a rate of not less than 3 per cent. per annum." He said this was an Amendment in order that interest at the rate of 3 per cent. should be paid to vendors under Under Sub-section 2 of the clause. the existing law the interest had to be fixed by agreement, and it had been 4 The Amendment was necesper cent. sary for the protection of the Treasury, because if they were to receive less it would be at the loss of the Exchequer. Amendment moved "In page 11, line 13, after 1896,' to insert the words which interest shall be at a rate of not less than 31⁄2 per cent. per annum.' On Question, Amendment agreed to. LORD CLONBROCK moved to insert at page 11, line 18, after "holdings," the following new sub-section :-"(2) The value of such arrears of rent, if not agreed upon between the vendor and the Land Commission, shall be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and shall be paid by the Land Commission to the vendor the lands." He said that the Amendover and above the purchase money of for arrears to be fixed by agreement ment provided that the sum of money between the vendor and the Land Com mission should, if they would not agree, be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and should be paid by the Land Commission to the vendor, irrespective of the purchase money for the land. It was already provided that the Land Commission should pay 3 per cent. interest on the purchase money, and that if the sale became inoperative an account should be made between the vendor and the Land Commission, and any interest already received by the vendor should be refunded, but there was no provision made for an account of arrears received or remitted by the Land Commission. He wished to have words inserted providing that arrears should be taken into account, and that after they had been taken into account and fixed they should be recoverable. Amendment moved "In page 11, line 18, after the word 'hold ings to insert the following new Sub-section : (2.) The value of such arrears of rent, if not agreed upon between the vendor and the Land Commission, shall be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and shall be paid by the Land Commission to the vendor over and above the purchase-money of the lands." (Lord Clonbrock.) LORD ASHBOURNE remarked that if the Amendment were carried it would introduce, for the first time, an already overburdened Judge into the mechanism of accounts-namely, the Judicial Commissioner. There was not a man more hardly worked in Ireland, and he should look with some hesitation to the placing upon his shoulders of any burden to which he would have to apply his judicial mind. It would not be reasonable to ask him to assume the burden of assessing the arrears. The purchase of an estate must always be for a lump sum, including the value and arrears, and to seek to divide it and make calculations and sub-divisions would be against that primary idea. The purchase under any sound system should be for a lump sum, which the parties could arrive at by some means, by the rough sense of intuition or the rule of thumb, and it would not be desirable to work out these calculations. LORD CLONBROCK stated that it was important to remember that in the case of a settled estate the purchase money would be realty and go to the inheritors, whilst the arrears would be personalty. LORD CASTLETOWN pointed out that under the section itself the arrears were to be handed over to the Land Commission, and they would collect as much as they pleased. Supposing the rents were £20,000 and the arrears £15,000, those arrears would go to the tenant for life, and if they were taken by the Land Commission the latter would have £15,000 for doing absolutely nothing. Lord Ashbourne had very glibly treated the sums in bulk, but there could never be any sale in bulk, and there never had been such a sale. It had always been a question of a sale to tenants for a certain sum, and the arrears had been dealt with afterwards. As a rule, arrangements were made either for the arrears to be remitted by the owner or some arrangement by which the arrears were paid to the seller and afterwards agreed upon. The question was a fair one and deserved consideration. against any other proprietors or tenants of holdings, and placed the burden of examining into and settling these matters on the Land Commissioners. The Commissioners already had a great deal of work to do. Formerly all these questions of boundaries, easements, and appurtenances were dealt with in Ireland, as in England by the ordinary County Courts. Some feeling might be aroused amongst the parties because they would have to go up to Dublin and squabble, whereas they might go into the County Courts and settle the matter there at very little expense. It was not a very serious Amendment, and he begged the Government to accept it. Amendment moved "To leave out Clause 22.”—(Lord Castletown.) THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said that the clause was inserted in the Bill to save time and expense, and it could in no respect be inferior in its operations, because the Land Commission could only determine questions under it at the request of all parties concerned. It was much better to have the questions settled at the time of sale than to have them settled by Courts of law afterwards. LORD CASTLETOWN asked and obtained leave to withdraw the Amendment missioners might decide that the point was not a frivolous one. Such a restriction of the right of appeal was manifestly unfair, because Mr. Wyndham had stated in the House of Commons that the Estates Commissioners were only to perform administrative duties and were not to interfere with legal points. It might be argued that the powers given to the Estates Commissioners were exactly similar to those given to magistrates, but in the first place magistrates had jurisdiction over points of law and the right to decide them, powers which were not vested in the Estates Commissioners at all. Again, if a magistrate refused to state a case an application could be made to the Court of King's Bench for a rule to call upon the magistrate to state a case. There was no similar right of appeal under this section, and why should greater missioners, who were purely administrative powers be given to the Estates Comofficers, and were in no way responsible for their legal proceedings. Amendment moved "In page 13, line 10, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of the paragraph and insert the words 'person aggrieved by any decision of an Estates Commissioner sitting alone may require his case to be reconsidered by the three Estates Commissioners sitting together, and any person interested may require that any question of law shall be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner.'"--(The Amendment, by leave of the House, Duke of Abercorn.) withdrawn. Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said the Amendment did not appear to be necessary because the Estates Commissioners were not a Court. The Bill provided that in cases where it was necessary there should be a reference to the Judicial Commissioner on any point of law unless the application to refer was a frivolous noble Duke's Amendment applied were one. The other questions to which the not questions of law, and Estates Commissioners were not a Court of law it did not seem possible to give an appeal from a decision of one set of Co mmissioners to the other. as the THE DUKE OF ABERCORN moved to leave out of page 13, line 10, from the word "any" to the end of paragraph, and insert the words "person aggrieved by any decision of an Estates Commissioner sitting alone may require his case to be reconsidered by the three Estates Commissioners sitting together, and any person interested may require that any question of law shall be referred to the decision of a Judicial Commissioner." He thought this Amendment was very necessary as * THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said there was no provision in the Bill as it they felt it very hard that the Estates stood that the Estates Commissioners Commissioners, who were laymen, should should sit together, and the right of have the right to decide whether an appeal on a point of law to the Judicial appeal upon a legal point was frivolous. Commissioner was only permitted to be That was the whole point of the Amendexercised in cases where the Estates Com-ment, and it might cause both landlords Lord Castletown. and tenants very great injury if it was, than anything else. The section as it left to laymen to decide a point of law. was framed was quite bona fide, and it was framed with a keen desire to give an appeal on a question of law. THE DUKE OF ABERCORN said that very often the questions which arose were mixed questions of fact and law. The Estates Commissioners would have the power to allocate the purchase money of estates to the persons entitled to it, and to settle all the different interests. The questions which arose were sometimes questions more of law than of fact, and it seemed strange that laymen, and not lawyers, not bound to give any reason for what they did, should be able to decide these questions without any possibility of appeal. There certainly ought to be a right of appeal. LORD DUNBOYNE pointed out that the Estates Commissioners were to be the persons who were to say whether or not an application for a reference on a question of law was frivolous, and they were the persons against whose decision the appeal would lie. Would it meet the view of the Government if an appeal were given in the event of the Court of Appeal consenting? There were instances in which no appeal could be made. except on application to a Judge in chambers, and if the Judge refused the appeal the party would go to the Court Some provision of that kind should be of Appeal and ask for leave to appeal. inserted in the clause, so that in the event of the Estates Commissioners refusing leave to appeal, the application could be made either to the Judicial Commissioner or the Court of Appeal. the words, "Unless in the opinion of the LORD CASTLETOWN suggested that Estates Commissioners the application is frivolous" should be struck out of the clause. * LORD ASHBOURNE said it would be found in the appeal section that the appeal on questions of law was given unless the Estates Commissioners thought * LORD ASHBOURNE observed that those who put forward the Amendments were not keeping in mind the scheme by which the Estates Commissioners were appointed, and that it was mainly intended that they should carry out a great executive transaction. The appeal to the Judicial Commissioner was a great safeguard. It was suggested that the right of appeal was weakened by putting in the qualifying words, "Unless, in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, the application is frivolous." These words were familiar in stating cases from statutes relating to petty sessions Courts. He did not think that any tribunal ever dealt lightly or carelessly with the powers entrusted to them, and it would be a scandalous abuse for any man to refuse to consider a case and refer questions of law to the proper tribunal, especially when they were presented to him supported by legal arguments or opinions, and everything to show the soundness of the belief. On the other hand, it might well be that any man of common sense would be able to see, without any legal training or acuteness, that the question was not put forward as one of legal substance, but in a very frivolous way, which suggested On Question, their Lordships divided: that it was more a seeking to gain time' -Contents, 60: Not-Contents, 63. it frivolous. *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: We want that out. * LORD ASHBOURNE replied that the provision worked adequately and without any abuse. He did not anticipate any likelihood or possibility of abuse. No one holding a responsible office would refuse to grant an appeal on a real question of law. THE EARL OF ROSSE moved to insert in page 13, line 10, after "law" the words "the Land Judge or and after "Com- missioners" the words " as the case may be." The object of the Amendment was to provide specifically that the Land Judge should be consulted by the Land Commissioners in the carrying out of the "In page 14, line 3, after the word 'with' to insert the words the Land Judge or,' and after the word Commissioners' to insert the of the Amendment and he (the Duke of Devonshire) did not know why it was supposed to be desirable. Another Amendment standing in the name of the noble Duke, which provided that "all officers of the Land Judge's Court (in- cluding clerks in the Receivers' Depart- ment of not less than ten years standing) shall be eligible for employ- ment by the Estates Commissioners under this sub-section," was quite *The EARL of WESTMEATH said he stood that the Amendment was to enable |