353 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 I IE E. M. Kelly, Esq. 14471. Are you acquainted with the facts of that case?— I know the circum- — stances of the landlord extremely well; he is a clergyman, and the brother of 29 June 1838. Armstrong, who is one of the leading liberal interests in the county. From the character given of him by his own tenantry in several other instances, it would appear that there is no doubt whatever existing among them, that he would have taken every step necessary for the purpose of having the tenants registered, but it appeared ' in some other cases during the registration, that landlords had declined to give the counterpart, and where, in consequence, secondary evidence was admitted, because of the fact appearing that the landlord was hostile to the tenants' registry; but in this case it appeared, and in several other instances, from the statements of the tenants themselves, that they had 110 doubt that the leases would be given, and in which instances, afterwards, Mr. Gibson thought proper to reject the claim, for the very reason that they had not taken proper steps. 14472. Can you state whether the landlord in this instance has an agent?— I rather think not. 14473. Are you aware that the agents are in the habit of receiving from the tenants what they call lease- money on setting land ?— I have heard that such a practice prevails ; I have no knowledge of it. 14474. You cannot state, then, whether that is not generally a sum greater than the amount of both the counterpart and the lease ?— It is quite impossible for me to say. 14475. Chairman.'] Would any honourable agent, doing his duty by his employer, receive money in the manner that is suggested ?— I am not certain that it would be exactly consistent with his duty; but I have heard that the practice prevails. I do not mean to say that it is for the purpose of paying the expenses of the lease, it is rather a sort of bonus for the letting of the land. Such anxiety prevails to procure land, and such opposition to each other, that they give sums of money to the agents in many instances, I believe. 14476. As far as your knowledge of Ireland goes, would it be considered as acting honourably and honestly by the principal if the agent took money for such objects as that?— I should say not. 14477. Mr. F. French.] You cannot say whether the agents, generally speak- ing, are in the habit of receiving the price of the stamp, and some sum in addition, for their trouble in drawing up the lease ?— I am not aware that such a practice exists; I know many instances in which the leases are prepared by the attornies of the tenants themselves. 14478. In the question I put to you, as to the agents receiving lease mone}^ 1 meant merely the price of the stamp, and a fair remuneration for their profes- sional trouble ?— I am not aware that such a practice as that prevails ; on the contrary, I should say that in most of the instances which have come under my knowledge, the leases have been prepared by the tenant himself, or by his own attorney. There are some cases in Ireland where there are a good many special covenants in the leases, and then the landlord's agent insists upon preparing the leases himself, or having them prepared according to a certain form. For exam- ple, on Lord Fitzwilliam's estate, where the covenants are very special indeed upon the tenantry, the practice, I believe, there is altogether to have the leases prepared by the agent of the landlord. 14479. Chairman.] The tenants paying the professional charges ?— The tenants paying the professional charges. 14480. Mr. Seijeant Jackson.] Would it not be a very discreditable thing 011 the part of the landlord's agent if he, receiving from the tenant the stamp duty as upon both parts, the lease and the counterpart, and likewise the emoluments incident to the preparation of two instruments, was only to prepare and engross one part, and to leave the tenant destitute of the corresponding part ?— I have no doubt whatever it would be most discreditable. 14481. Would it not be taking money from the tenant almost upon a false pretence ?— I have no doubt it would be most discreditable. 14482. Do you believe that that is a practice which prevails to any extent ?— 1 believe it is not; I have never heard of an instance of the kind. 14483*. Mr. French.] Is it not a practice that might prevail without a tenant complaining, he being put into possession, and finding no hardship from the want ot his counterpart ?— I have 110 doubt whatever that, if it had been the case in this instance, the tenant would have stated it. 14484. He