\ 50 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. G. Gardiner. 28 March 1838. 7537. Then it is from the tithe composition book that you take the valuation ? — I do not come forward there as a valuator to oppose the claim of any person; I never did. 7538. In what capacity did you come forward ?— Taking notes of the pro- ceedings and the evidence before the barrister. shorthand writer? 7539- in full. 7540. 7541- 7542, You came as a - It is not short- hand, I write As a note- taker ?— Yes. Are you employed for any newspaper ?— No. Were you ever employed as a note- taker before you entered into that capacity with the Conservatives of that county ?— No. 7543. You are a surveyor by profession, but you did not survey or value for the Conservatives for the purpose of the registry ?— No. 7544. Were you ever brought here as a witness before ?— I was before two brought here Committees upon the two petitions. 7545. Proving the objections that were taken to votes ? - Yes. 7546. But you were not sworn to the value ?— In some cases I was. 7547. How much a day did they pay you for note- taking in general?— 10,?. in general, and my expenses; sometimes 11, a day, wThen I was only two or three days. 7548/ Did you ever get 11, a day for anything else in your life ?— I did; for two hours I got 51, for measurement for a day. 7549. Chairman.] In the case of Mulvy, you were understood to state, that you surveyed his land in 1834 ?— I did not survey, I examined the land. 7550. In conjunction with the tithe commissioner ?— With Mr. Nicholson, the tithe commissioner. 7,551. And by that means you became perfectly acquainted with the lands of Mulvy ?— I did. 7552. And subsequently to that, although you never went into the same minute investigation, you still were in the habit of seeing his lands?— Frequently. 7553. He was admitted in the year 1836?— 111 October 1836. 7554. And you admit that there might have been a great variation in the value of that particular holding between 1834 and 1836?— It could have been so, but it was not so. 75.55. Are you in a condition to state that the property had not been im- proved, but was of the same value in 1836, when that individual was admitted, as it was in 1834, when he was rejected ?— It was not altered 1 s. better 01* worse. 75.56. Therefore, whatever might have been the case, such was not the case ? — It was not. the ease. 7557. Mr. O'Connell.'] Was farming produce dearer in 1834 or in 1836?— I believe it was full as dear in 1834. 7558. Can you state that with any positiveness ?— I do not exactly recollect the price of grain in the country markets at that time. 75,59. Chairman.] Can you answer the question, which was the period of highest price, 1834 or 1836?— Not without referring to the prices. 7,560. Mr. Lefroy.] Was the claimant, Mulvy, examined in 1835 to the value of his farm ?— Fie wras. 7561. Chairman.] You ascertained the value of this man's holding in 1834 ? — I did. 7562. What was the value of his holding in 1834 ?— The value of the holding in 1834 was 32 s> an acre. 7563. How many acres ?— Ten acres. 7564. Mr. O'Connell Did he pay 32s. 6 d. ?— No, he paid but 24 s., I think. 7565. Chairman.] You valued him at 32s. 6d. an acre ; in what way did you make that valuation ?— We classed the land. 7566. Supposing it had been to be let to a tenant, what would you have said ; as the rent he ought to have given ?— That was the average rent that would have been got for it, taking the 10 acres altogether into consideration. 7567. Mr. O'Connell,] Then the valuation was what you thought a solvent tenant could afford to pay ?— It was. 7568. A solvent tenant, if he could afford to pay the 16/. 5 s., would, of course, expect to have some value for his money, would not he ?— Of course' 7569. He w