Mr. Patrick Pl od. V 76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE ( m7. Was his land in a good state of cultivation ?— Yes, very good. 9338. Have you the particulars of the mode in which it was cropped ?— No ; 15 May 1838. it was potatoes and meadow. , f , , 9339. Were there farm- houses upon it ?— Yes, very good farm- houses; I believe the map could be produced. . 0340 Can you state what stock he had upon any of those occasions, upon his farm ? I think the last time I viewed his farm he had four or hve head of horned cattle. 9341. Cows?— Yes, 9342. Had he a horse ?— Yes. 9343. He kept a horse ?— Yes. 9344. In your judgment would a solvent tenant have given him 10/. a year over and above the rent he paid for his interest in the farm ?— Yes. 9345. And according to your judgment and understanding of the term bene- ficial interest, what would ' his beneficial interest in that farm be worth ?— It would be worth 30/. a year, or from that to 40/.; the other valuators that were along with me, valued the land at 35 s. an acre. 9346. Was it an old lease ?— A very old lease; I suppose nearly 50 years old. 9347. Mr. Lefroy.] Would his beneficial interest be estimated under 40/. or above 40/. a year ?— I did not calculate his beneficial interest then; I thought it unnecessary. 9348. You are well acquainted with the farm, as you have viewed and valued it three times over ?— Yes. 9349. Then you can tell us what you estimated the beneficial interest at? — It must be over 30/. 9350. But you would not go so far as 40/.?— Yes, I think I would. 9351. Would it go beyond 40/. ?— I think it might; some trifle. 9352. But you would not venture to go beyond 40/. ?— No, as I have not the particulars with me. 9353. Now will you tell us how it is that the beneficial interest of a man having 15 acres, for which lie pays 23/. 12 s. 6d., is worth 30/. a year, and that the beneficial interest of a man who has 13 h acres, at 12 s. an acre, is not worth a great deal more than 40/. a year?— A great deal depends upon the quality of the land, as well as the rent a man pays. This is a lease made 50 years back, and I think if it was let now, it would let at 35 s. an acre. 9354. Chairman.] Do not landlords in the county of Longford consider all those advantages when they let lands ?— Yes; but 50 years ago it was a very different thing. 9355- F) o you mean, in all the cases you have brought forward they are 50 year old leases ?— No. 9356. Then do landlords in the county of Longford in your belief, shut their eyes to its peculiar advantages when they fix the rent of land?— No, I think in some cases the landlords charge a very high rent. 93.57- F) o you mean in all the cases you have brought before the Committee, the landlords have charged a high rent ?— No. 9358. Did you not state in a former answer, that so far from lands in the county of Longford being let higher since 1828, they have been let lower?— Since that period the landlords have been getting from 5 s. to 10 s. per acre more than they did in 1828. 9359- Do you mean to say, in the county of Longford, the landlords, since 1828, have been getting more than they did in that year ?— Yes, in this barony. 9360. Have you produced any instance before the Committee, in which the reverse of an increase of rent since that time has been the case ?— I do not know. 9361. Have you produced before this Committee any instance of land being let lower since 1828 than it let previously ?— I am able to prove that, upon the Oreville estate, the same quality of land' has been let since 1828 for 1 /. an acre more. 9362. Have you produced before this Committee any instance of a farm or land being let lower since 1828 than it was previously ?— I cannot say since 1828 ; I was not in the county at that time. 9363. Have you yourself produced before this Committee any instance in ^ viiich that has been the fact, according to your own statement?—! do not know 9364. Have