SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. I/ O 2055. Did you visit and value the house of John Quinnel, of Morley s- lane since Christmas last ?— I did. - ldne' of It ' 56' What ValU6 d° y° U S6t UP° n that?~ I think bl is ^ e utmost value 2057. What state is it in ?— In very bad repair, and down a filthy lane. • ilia Y ° 1 j ? D° y° U find that that Person is rated ?— He was valued out 5 tW° USeS' Valued 51 each' and he appealed, and was struck 2059. ( To Mr. Colburn.) Do you find him upon the register ?— « John Quinnel nailer, Morley's- lane, city of Cork; house at Morley's- lane; householder 10/ • registered 14th of November 1832." 2060. Did he vote at any elections ?— No. 2061. Mr. Beamish.'] Were you in the premises?— I was not inside. 2062. How did you value them ?— From the outside. 2063. If you were going round the city of Cork to value, should you consider it a correct way of ascertaining the value, to view merely the outside ?— When I was there the house was shut up. 2064. If you were valuing for the grand jury, should you consider you were doing your duty as a valuator to return the value of houses of which you saw nothing but the outside ?— No. 2065. Then your going round and seeing merely the outside, you do not con- sider that that can be a correct and true way of testing the value ?— I should be a better judge if I went inside. 2066. Then, inasmuch as in valuing under the grand jury, you would not have considered that you were doing your duty to judge of the value only by the outward appearance, do you think you can give a correct valuation of a house merely by inspecting the outside ?— I think I estimated the value as correctly as I could; it would be more correct if I went inside. As a valuator I should not be doing my duty if I did not go inside, but now I do not value it as a valuator. 2067. Then of what use can your valuation be, if it is not made upon the same principle as a valuator would adopt ?— The valuation that I am giving the Committee now is the value that I think the premises are worth. 2068. How could you ascertain what the premises were worth unless you inspected those premises ?— I could not ascertain so correct a value as if I was in the premises, and therefore I took this house as well as I could by viewing the outside, as I could not get inside it. 2069. Do you conceive that to be a way of coming to the value upon which you can give this Committee a statement of the bond fide value ?— I think I can from the appearance of the house. 2070. Chairman.] By Act of Parliament the valuators have the power of entering into the house ?— They have. 2071. You had not the power of entering the house, as you only went as a private individual ?— No, I had not. 2072. But you formed your judgment upon the exterior appearance of the house ?— Yes ; I lived at the end of that lane for 20 years of my life, and I have known the house all my life; and I need not have gone to it to ascertain the value of it at all. . . 2073. Mr. Serjeant Jackson^ Would you have gone into it it it had not been deserted at the time ?— I would. 2074. Did it present to you the appearance of a deserted house ?— It was very much out of repair, a wretched place. . 2075. Did you try to get into it?— No ; it was so evidently uninhabited that I did not try. 2076. Was the door shut?— It was. 2077. Were the windows broken?— They were. 2078. Did it appear to be altogether in a very bad state?— Altogether in a VTo7odDoatyou consider that you have put the outside value upon it, according to the dimensions of the house, and the state and condition of the house.- 1 tso. Then I suppose you would, in the valuator, have felt it right to enter the house; you did not th nk it w as nece sa y to enable you to give the evidence you have given to- day to do so ?- I not. 0.46. N 4