4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE , . „ , „ 1 ^ 266 You have no other notes in your possession which you took on that Richard Daly, Esq. • *, occasion t— J\ o. UCCUhlUIi . r— 1> U. 17 July 1838. i5267> Nor any Qther p— J have not. 1 5268. And those notes being what you took down, as I collect, to inform us of the principle upon which Mr. Gibson registered ? — The fact of it is, that if those notes were expunged altogether I have an accurate knowledge, founded upon long experience of" the principles upon which Mr. Gibson registers, being connected with the register from October 1832 up to the very last quarter sessions, not only of the principles upon which Mr. Gibson has registered, but the principles upon which his predecessors, Mr. Cosgreave, Mr. Howley, and Mr. Lisle, have acted. 15269. In estimating the value of the franchise, did this other gentleman take into account the labour that was expended in the cultivation ?— Always, when the matter was brought to their notice, they always made that an ingre- dient in the calculation. 15270. Unless, after deducting the cost of labour, of seed and manure, and other outgoings necessary to produce a crop, the claimant had 10 I. over and above his outgoings, these other gentlemen did not admit him to the franchise ? — Unless the balance of profit amounted to 10 I., over and above all rent and charges, they did not. I use the term charges as comprehending those various ingredients. 15271. Did those gentlemen charge the claimant with his own labour ?— That was generally met in this rough, and, I will admit, not very accurate manner; the claimant was asked what number he had in the family, generally perhaps seven or eight in a family, wife and children; children generally in a helpless state, unable perhaps to contribute to the labour; it was asked him, then, what it might cost him to support the family ; he generally said 10 l. or 12?. a year, and that was, in the majority of cases, set off against the labour. 15272. So that the principle upon which you state these other gentlemen registered, and I am now applying myself wholly to those other gentlemen, Mr. Cosgreave, Mr. Howley, and Mr. Lisle, as to all those gentlemen I under- stand you to say distinctly they all registered upon the same principle as Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Gibson with them ?— I say in the main the principle was the same. 15273. When you say in the main, do you mean there was any difference between them ?— I do not; I mean this, that they generally registered upon that balance of profit, after deducting expenses, in those cases where there was an analysis entered upon; but I must tell you in the majority of cases that scrutinising process was not gone into at all. 15274. Before we go into particulars, I wish to recall you again to your former evidence, to know if you still adhere to the statement, that Mr. Gibson registered upon the same principles as his predecessors ?— As far as I can form a judgment upon the matter he did so. 15275. There was 110 difference between them?— No important or essential difference. 15276. Was there any difference of any sort ?— There was this difference, that Mr. Cosgreave allowed secondary evidence to be given of a lease where the lease was not produced, of a nature which I consider Mr. Gibson would not admit. 15277. Mr. O'Connell. More lax evidence ?— Yes. 15278. Mr. Lefroy.] Then if there was any difference between them it was that Mr. Gibson was more strict than some of his predecessors ?— More strict in some particulars. 15279- Now, with respect to ascertaining the qualification in point of value; did Mr. Gibson adopt the same rule as his predecessors ?— Generally speaking adopt he did ; the course of registration was tlius- 15280. I do not ask you the course of registration; did Mr. Gibson adopt the same rule as his predecessors ?— I will just give you a very short outline of the course