V 56 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T HE Mr. G. Gardiner, skill, and industry ?— He would; I consider that it would pay him more than 10 per cent, then ; his outlay would enhance the value of the property. 28 March 1838. 7705. The property would then be the value enhanced, and make of itself a qualification ?— It would. 7706. Was Farrell, who was examined for Mulvy, a claimant at the same time ?— He was. 7707. So that in effect he was swearing for himself when he was swearing for Mulvy ? He was holding up the value of the townland in order to help to establish his own claim. 7708. Did he or Mulvy, or any witness, prove that, in point of fact, more than 32s. 6d. was paid for any land of that quality in that neighbourhood ?— No. 7700. Mr. O'Connell.] Is the school which you superintend a national school? — No." 7710. Is it a voluntary school of your own."— No, it was endowed under Lady Ross. 7711. And continues to be so ?— There has been no intimation to me yet of any change made. 7712. You said that one of your tests was the beneficial interest; how do you test the beneficial interest ?— The barrister had expressed an opinion, where the value did not come up to 10 /., of admitting the man upon his statement of the benefit of the holding to himself; but not upon the solvent tenant test. 7713. That is, if it be worth 10/. to the man?— Where the man has established value up to 8/., perhaps. 7714. That is, that a solvent tenant would pay him 8/. ?— Both himself and the persons supporting him. 7715. If they established that a solvent tenant would pay 8/. the barrister would consider that that was a beneficial interest of 10/. ?— In some cases he expressed so. 7716. Mr. Lefroy.'] You said that Mr. Tighe was the chairman of the county, who succeeded Mr. French, and it was his duty to preside at the several ses- sions held since Mr. French resigned ?— It was. 7717. Did Mr. Tighe admit any of those voters who had been struck off the register by the Committee of 1833 ?— He did. 7718. Did he require proof of anew qualification, or of the former quali- fication?— He admitted some of them without any qualification but the pro- duction of the old certificate. 7719. Then in that respect he differed from Mr. French's practice?— He did. 7720. Did he admit them simply upon the production of the certificate ?— He did. 7721. Can you turn to any of your memorandums of cases of that sort?— I can. 7722. In how many cases did he admit those?— He admitted Michael Rey nolds in October 1830, in the Ballymahon division; and inGranard he admitted a man of the name of Hugh Donoghue by only the production of a former certificate rejected in 1832. Those are the only two. 7223. Chairman.] You have in your book the objections taken ?— I have. 7724. Will you read the entire entry you have respecting each of those two?—" The 10th of October 183/ Michael Reynolds produced a certificate to be renewed. The court remarked, that the 2/ th section of the Reform Act requires it to be renewed; Mr. Courtenay tendered evidence of his being dis- qualified by the Committee of The House of Commons, which was not received by the court: overruled. Admitted." 7725. He tendered no other evidence than that?— No. 7726. Mr. Lefroy.] Did Reynolds produce any document but his certificate? •— None. 7727. No lease ?— No lease. 7728. No proof of value ?— No ; Mr. Courtenay requested him to be brought up, but the court would not require it. 7729. The claimant was not examined?— No. 7730. But admitted upon the production of his certificate ?— Yes. 7731. Will you now refer to your note of the case of Hugh Donoghue ?— 41 Hugh Donoghue, of Farmullagh, produced a certificate to be renewed. The case