i 200 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. E. Rooney. No; but I say this case is an exception. This man was registered after he was broke by a Committee of The House of Commons; he went upon the table before 25 May 1838. t} le reentering barrister with his lease, and produced Mr. Nesbitt and Mr. Park, Avho proved that it was worth 50 per cent, more than the rent he pays. 11317. How did they estimate it?— As putting it up in the market to set to a third person. 11318. Did they estimate it in this way, that supposing that land was again about to be let, the landlord might fairly ask 20 I. a year more rent than he now gets for it ?— No, I do not think he would have a right to ask it. 11319. Why not?— Because the landlord has not a right to ask what a middle- man would get. 11320. Why not?— Because he should leave a good interest to the tenant. 11321. Ought not the middleman to do the same?— Yes; but I say he could not afford to do the same. 11322. But what is the distinction between the right of a middleman and the right of the original landlord, to get the full value of the land so far as the interest of the tenant is concerned?— The rights of both are the same; of course they may get as high a rent as they can. 11323. But I ask you again, whether this land put up in the market, could be set at 20/. a year more than it now lets for ?— I do not say it ought; but I think it would. 11324. Supposing the full value is to be given for it, do you think it would ?— Yes. 1132*;. Mr . Lefroy.'] Were you examined before the Committee in 1837?— No- li 326. You had valued those lands before the Committee sat?— Yes. 11327. Then how came it you were not produced as a witness before that Committee ?— There were two or three other persons who valued in the same barony, and Mr. White told me in Dublin he did not think it would be necessary that so many should come from the same barony ; there were two or three others from the same barony, and those he considered would be quite enough, so that I did not come over at all. 11328. Then the Committee had before them the evidence of the valuators of those farms on both sides ?— Yes. 11329. Now you state that the lease, by mistake, reserved less rent than the man had offered ?— Yes, so I heard. 11330. You heard that from himself?— Yes, from himself or others. 11331. That was by mistake?— It might have been by mistake, or kindness, or otherwise. 11332. It might be?— Yes, he certainly got it for less than he proposed; I heard that from himself. 11333. Did you happen to see any of his receipts for rent ?— I might; I certainly did see receipts in most instances. 1 ] 334. Did you see them in this instance ?— I cannot particularly recollect it. 11335. Do you happen to know whether he paid rent according to his lease, or according to his offer?— I am quite certain he paid according to his lease. 11336. Why are you certain of that?— From what the man said, and I know he has been registered since. 11337. What was it the man himself said, that makes you sure of it ?— Here is his evidence ; the witness stated that he came there to prove to the world he had a 20/. vote, if he chose to register it. 7 o ^ 11338. Where was that evidence given that you have now reported to the Committee ?— Before the registering barrister, in October 1837, 11339. I desire to know what is it makes you sure he pays the rent accord- ing to his lease, and not according to his offer ?— I am sure from what the man himself told me, and what I understood, generally, through Mr. White's agents, of his farms. 11340. Now tell me what the man told you himself?— He told me that was his rent, and that was the rent he paid. 11341. And yet you cannot say what was the precise rent reserved by the lease ? —£. 12. 85. 7 d. 11342. Did you read the lease?— Yes, no question of it. 11343. When