else the rents could have been arrived at.'[126] And once more: 'Did the Sub-Commissioners invariably take the occupation interest of the sitting tenant into account?--I think so.' I conclude with these remarks of Mr. Barnes, one of the best and most impartial of Irish valuers: 'When I came to give evidence in Court I found that nothing else would be accepted as evidence unless based on occupation interest. It was almost the first question.... Whenever there was an answer made that the valuation was based on what the landlord would get for the land in his own hands, it was discounted at once.'[127] No wonder that it has been alleged by the highest authority with respect to this claim, since proved to have been unfounded, guarded and cautious as the language is: 'There is, however, reason to believe that this notion of an occupation interest existed in the minds of some of the early valuers, and did, in fact, influence them, and it is very possible that some cases in which the reductions there made appear startling, may be, in part, attributable to this doctrine.'[128] What amount of the rental of Ireland was unlawfully cut down owing to the theory of 'occupation right,' it is, of course, impossible to ascertain. Reductions of rent, too, were probably unjustly made through the ignorance of the Land Commission as to agricultural matters. I refer to a grotesque instance of this: 'You have marked a passage there in the judgment, which, according to you, shows that owing to their ignorance as experts they entirely mistook what six-course rotation meant?--Yes. The fact is they took it to be the same crop in the whole seventy acres, that instead of having so many different crops in this portion of the ground, it was to be put into one crop for the year, and that is what they call "rotation" in the Court of Rehearing.... It is plain enough, from the authorised report of the judgment, that they made that mistake?--It is clear as possible, and it was upon that that they threw me out. The tenant himself knew that it was all absurdity and mistake.'[129]