S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 36, ' SLS 7), take it upon himself to swear that what a man had taken upon himself to swear r, rr . was untrue. 1 bweai John Juhan> • v. \ A1t\ f0W! d. the cluestion t0 be P^, Do you mean to say 11 July 1838. tnat what A, B., the applicant, has sworn is untrue; but he put it himself-— I will not say he put it, but he allowed it to be put. 14799- You never knew any instance in which a witness swore that what the applicant had sworn was untrue ?— I never knew such an instance occur and I have frequently inquired of witnesses I wished to produce whether they could in such an event contradict that swearing, and I never found a man that could 14800. If you could have found him you would have produced him?— Yes if he was a credible witness. 14801. Of course you would not produce a disreputable witness ?— I hope I should not. 1 14802. Mr. Hogg.'] You were called, or considered yourself called upon, not only to contradict the facts stated by the applicant, but to produce a witness who would depose that what the applicant had stated was untrue, knowing what he stated was untrue ?— No, not to that extent. 14803. Because it is matter of belief what a man says the land is worth to him, and if you are called upon to contradict that, you are called upon to con- tradict the opinion of another man ?— No, the applicant always swore positively that the holding was worth to him 10 I. a year above his rent. The general ques- tion was, Is your holding worth to you 10 I. a year above your rent and charges, and he swore in the affirmative that it was, which made a case for him primd facie. 14804. Not only prima facie but conclusive, if the opinions of those who had knowledge of agriculture did not induce the revising barrister to alter his opinion ?— Great pains was taken to procure such evidence as would prevent the registration of the applicants, but in no one case did I ever succeed. 14805. Mr. Lefroy.] Do you recollect any instance in which a claimant, having sworn that the land was to him of the value of 10 I., over and above the rent and outgoings, had gone into a detail of the produce of the land, and it appeared that the produce of the land, after the necessary outgoings to raise it, would not give 10 I. a year, and yet has been registered ?— I would not undertake to say such a case occurred ; I would not say that it did not, and the reason I would speak cautiously to that is, that the computation was so difficult, and there were so many matters of opinion in forming the lots and entering into the account, and the opinion of what should be expended on land and the produce of the crops. Mr. Battersby, when counsel for the Conservatives in 1836, went at great length into such calculations. I could not undertake to say, nor do I think, that without allowing credit for the labour, that a case occurred in which it did not appear that the applicant had 10/. a year gross produce. 14806. Mr. O'Connell.] By gross produce you mean after deducting his rent and charges ?— Yes. 14807. Mr. Hogg.] Such as seed?— I do not know that that was ever brought into the account; I do not recollect any deduction except rent. 14808. Mr. O'Connell.] You remember that Mr. Battersby examined as to the produce ?— Yes. 14809. And the price of the produce ?— Yes. 14810. And the cost of manure ?— Yes. 14811. He went very minutely into the debtor and creditor account ?— Yes, but he got very unsatisfactory answers to his questions. If he inquired about labour at the time that additional labour was required, the applicant would make it appear, that by the interchange of labour with a neighbour, he was not to pay for any labour, and make the same principle apply to seed and the other modes of cultivating the land. 14812. Mr. Lefroy.] I understood you to say distinctly, that 111 110 case was the value of labour deducted?- 1 am not aware that in any case the value of the labour was deducted by, but I am quite clear that the principle on which Mr. Gibson registered was, not to deduct the labour. 14813. Can you say you are certain he registered in many cases where it the labour had been deducted the man would not have had the value ot 10 1.1— in many cases the man swore that it was by his labour and industry he made the produce, and yet in those cases the man was registered. 643. 3C4 14814. And