4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. T. Deehan. seek to register. I have investigated them, and wherever I found there was an objection,° or I thought they were not entitled to register, I invariably desired ip My i838- them not to go forward. 15596. Did you inquire into the value in the inquiries you made? — No; there were other persons who inquired more g 15597. Do you recollect in 1832 any declaration being made that the Con- servatives would have recourse to any plan to increase their number ?— In 1832 the Liberals had a very considerable majority upon the registry over the Tories, and I had a conversation at that time with a gentleman who was agent for them. 15598. You mean Mr. Baker?— Yes; and in speaking of the majority we had over them, he said had he been long enough connected with the county the majority would not have been so great, or if the Conservatives would hencefor- ward act upon his advice, as they would execute rentcharges to their sons, for that in the case of any gentleman having a son, or two or three sons, it would not cost him more than 20 /. a year for each of those sons for clothing, pocket- inoney, and expenses of that nature. 15599. And maintenance ?— And maintenance, and they might as well give them a rentcharge of 20/. a year, and pay it to them, as give them more money in another way. 15600. And thus make them voters ?— And thus make them voters without what I would call any actual payment of the sums secured by the rent- charge. 15601. For that maintenance which they otherwise would have given to them ?— For that maintenance which they otherwise would have got. 15602. Was Mr. Cosgreave strict as to the value of the 10/. voters?— He was; he took a great deal of pains in ascertaining the value. 15603. Did he admit in any case a person who, in your opinion, was under value, who had not 10 /. a year beneficial interest ?— No, certainly not. 15604. Do you remember any instance of a person of the name of John Cummins, that would show how strict Mr. Cosgreave was?— 1 remember it » perfectly well; I thought it a very hard case. A man named John Cummins residing at Cloghan, King's County, was possessed of a plot of ground, upon which there were two houses subject to a rent of 4/. or 4/. 10 s.; one of the houses he had let at a rent of about 14/. a year, the other he lived in and so occupied; he estimated the value of that at about 9 /., making a gross income of about 23/. after deducting the head rent, from which he had a profit rent of 18/. 10 s. or 191. 15605. Did Mr. Cosgreave admit him to register?— No, he rejected him. The man was within 1/. or 30s. or so, of being entitled to register as a 20/. freeholder. 15606. Did Mr. Congreave take the produce of the farm in one year as the criterion of the valuer— No, he averaged so much a year, and lie always ex- amined the claimant as to what the farm would produce upon that average, taking it one year with another. 15607. So that your opinion distinctly is that there was 110 such thing as a fictitious vote in the registry of 1832?—! do not think there was, on the part of the Liberals. 15608. Or an improper vote ?— No. 15609. Mr. Meares Kelly has a brother, has he not ?— He has. 15610. Did he come forward to register ?— He came forward to register in 1832 upon a rentcharge. 15611. Was he admitted or rejected ?— He was, as I recollect, admitted ; he was cross- examined; and upon his cross- examination he admitted, though he had a rentcharge of his father of 20 /. a year, he had never received a pavment of money under it. 15612. You insisted it was a fraudulent rentcharge, an occasional rent- charge ?— I insisted it was an occasional one, not bond fide. 15613. Chairman.'] Mr. Kelly was admitted, was he ?— He was. 156 14. After discussion?— After discussion. 15615. Were many similar cases admitted ?— Not that I recollect, at that registry. 15616. How long had that rentcharge of Mr. Kelly's been in existence ?— For a very short time, I believe, previously ; not twelve months, I think. 15617. Now