V 326 M I N U T E S O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T H E Mr G Battersby 13687. And English money f— With respect to that I cannot state, not recollecting the date of his lease; it is more than probable it was English 19 June ,838. money, fo? those who had old leases were registered previous to that time. 13688. Mr. O'Connell In what part of the county did Hugh Carroll live ?— I have not a certain recollection, but I am pretty sure he lived in Garrycastle; I am not certain about that, but that is my recollection. 1 3689. You say, then, that Carroll held eight acres, at a rent of 5I. 13s.?— Yes. 13690. Were there any other outgoings ?— Four shillings tithe composition. 13691. Did it appear what the value of that land was ?— He swore himself the most that any honest man could pay for it was 30s. an acre. 13692. To make money of?— He did not say anything about making money; he said the most a man could pay was 30. v. an acre for it; and what they mean generally is, the most a man can pay and live by it: he did not add that, to the best of my recollection, but I have no doubt he meant it. 13693. Have you a distinct recollection he stated, the most a tenant could afford to give for it was 30s. an acre ?— Yes, I am certain of that. 13694. That is, I suppose, 30s. British, as the examination took place in i 83( 3 j.— yes ; nobody spoke of Irish money, except where there was a former lease, in which, of course, it was Irish money. 13695. Now, was any calculation entered into of what the outgoings would have been upon that farm in order to produce crops r— Upon that farm there was not, but upon other farms there was. The course I took with respect to that farm was, I asked the claimant what family he had who were able to assist him in his farm; he said, he had two sons; that all the three worked on the farm, and expended all their labour upon the farm. I asked him then what the labour of himself and his two sons would be worth by the year; what he could get as a common day labourer; he said, he could earn Qd. a. day, and his two boys 3 d. each. 13696. That would be Is. a day amongst them?— Yes. I then submitted to the chairman, that taking the value of the land to be what he represented it, 30s. an acre, he had no franchise ; that if the labour were deducted from the amount of the probable return, he could not have any beneficial interest. I examined nobody ; I submitted, upon his own evidence, he could not have any vote, and I called no one to contradict him. 13697. Chairman.] Was he admitted after that ?— He was. 13698. Without any evidence in support of his claim, except his own state- ment ?— Yes; there was a person examined, whose name 1 now forget, but the amount of his evidence, as I best recollect it, was, that he thought Carroll must have a franchise, inasmuch as he lived upon it, and by it. 13699. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Do you mean to say it was assumed, in the case of Hugh Carroll, in ascertaining whether or not he should be put upon the register, that the number of members of the family who are capable of working, is an ingredient to be taken into account in ascertaining whether a man has a beneficial interest in his farm ?— No, I cannot say that. Mr. Gibson assigned no reason, that I recollect, for registering the man, but that he did register him I have a distinct recollection. He did not, as I best recollect, assign reasons in any case throughout the registry, in none that 1 now remember. 13700. Upon what principle, then, was this man registered?— I cannot say. 13701. Because it is perfectly plain that " labour must be expended upon a farm to make it produce a crop ?— I have no recollection of any principle or reason being assigned ; I recollect Mr. Gibson, when I pressed him very much, saying it was the intention of the Legislature to extend the franchise very much, and that was a principle he professed; but I have no recollection of his alleging any reason for registering that particular vote, and I do not think he assigned any. 13702. What was the feet then that was deposed to by Carroll ?— That he and his two sons expended their labour upon his farm, and that they were capable of earning Is. a day amongst them. 13703. What evidence legally was there to show the man ought to be regis- tered ?— That I cannot precisely say ; I recollect, whether in that particular case I am not positive, but I recollect to have pressed Mr. Gibson in the course of the registry, with this argument, that if these men had worked as day labour- ers at the wages of the country, they would have had more emolument, and more