V 320 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N BEFORE THE iVr G. Battersby. offices ?— Yes ; the way that Mr. Buchanan, and witnesses of that class, valued '' J ' it vvas ti^ g. supposing it was out of lease, and the landlord had to let it > y June 1838. again, what could a man afford to give for it; what would a man give for it; that was the general course of examination in these cases, and not taking into account the house. 13882. Whatever advantages might be incident to the occupation ot that land would be taken into account in answer to such a question ?— Yes. 1388 3. Mr. Serjeant Jackson. You are aware the Judges in Ireland have had the question of beneficial interest before them frequently ?—' Yes. 13884. The 12 Judges have assembled to consider that question?— Yes. 13885. And the result is, they have come to a decision that the mode you have referred to as the criterion of beneficial interest is the legal and proper one ?— 1 conceive the Judges have gone much further than I attempted to go, or asked any witness to go, in the course of this investigation ; because I aban- doned altogether the idea of establishing a case upon the decision of the Judges, that is, upon what a solvent tenant could afford to give over and above the rent. There was 110 inquiry as to that, and I did not attempt it; the utmost I attempted in the course of this proceeding was, to ascertain whether a man could get 10/. profit over and above his outlay. 13886. My question has reference to the result of that meeting and con- sultation among the Judges, as to the nature of beneficial interest; was not the result, as I have stated, in the proportion of ten of the Judges to two, that the beneficial interest was to be calculated upon what a solvent tenant would give for the tenant's interest in the land, if it were in the market ?— No ; I do not conceive that to be the decision of the Judges at all. 13887. What was their decision?— Their decision, as I understand it, was this, that a man entitled to register must have such an interest as a solvent tenant could afford to pay him 10/. for, over and above the rent he pays. I do not think any solvent tenant could afford to pay 10 over and above the rent the tenant pays, unless the land was worth something more than 10 I. 13888. Then am I to understand you to say that the evidence which was given by Mr. Buchanan, and that class of witnesses whom you produced before Mr. Gibson at that registry, was as to what in their judgment a solvent tenant could afford to give for the tenant's interest ?— No, not what he could afford to give for it, but what was the utmost farthing the landlord could get a tenant to give. 13889. The rack- rent?— Yes, if he wished to screw the tenant as far as he could be screwed. 13890. That was the entire of the evidence ?— Yes. 13891. And even taking it to that extent, Mr. Gibson would not be satisfied with evidence of that description ?— He was not satisfied with evidence of that description. 13892. Mr. Curry. J What do you understand by beneficial interest without reference to the construction the Judges have put upon it ?— I mean an interest of 10?. over and above the outlay to produce the crop, and rent; but when I give that answer I do not at all intend to controvert the propriety of the Judges' decision. 13893. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] When you say that is what you understand by it, you mean that is the construction you would have put upon the terms in the Act of Parliament ?— No, I do not say that, because it is taken with other Acts. 13894. What construction do you put upon the terms " beneficial interest," coupled with the Acts of Parliament ?— I have not sufficiently considered that question to give an opinion upon it. 13895. What, then, do you mean by your answer to the honourable Mem- ber's question ?— I meant by the answer I gave to the abstract question of beneficial interest what I said, but when the Judges decided whether a certain oath was a proper oath to be put to the claimant or not, and they came to that conclusion, I understood they considered the different Acts of Parliament together, the 9 Geo. 4 and the 2 & 3 Will. 4. 13896. Were there not two questions before the Judges ?— Yes. 13897- Was not the first, What was, in construction of law, the meaning of beneficial interest when it was employed in the Reform Act ?— Yes. 13898. And was not the second question, What the oath was which ought to be taken by the jury?— Yes; but I apprehend neither question decides the abstract question of what beneficial interest is; the question they decided was,