) J S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 379 14710. Mr. Litton.] In every instance, are you prepared to say Mr. Gibson ,• refused to make a deduction for the value of the man's own labour, and that of his family ?— In every instance. ' n July l83g 14711. In no instance was a deduction made for that?— In no instance, that I recollect, was a deduction made for the labour. 14712. Had you counsel at the registrations ?— On one occasion only. 14713. Did your counsel upon that occasion, and you upon the others, when that principle was established so as to make it useless to object, object to this ? — I objected, and discussed the question at great length, so as to ascertain from the opinions Mr. Gibson judicially expressed, what the principles were upon which he registered. 14714. Did you in any instance produce witnesses to show that the farm would not bring from a solvent tenant 10/. a year in addition to the rent -— Yes, in several instances witnesses were produced; but latterly the practice was altogether abandoned, for both I and the persons with whom I conferred as to the production of evidence were clearly of opinion no testimony could be pro- duced which would contradict the case upon the oath made by the applicant. 14715. Why would not the testimony of persons who would swear that a solvent tenant would not pay 10/. a year for it affect the decision of the bar- rister ?—' The general course at our registry sessions is this; the applicant comes up and is asked by the counsel or agents supporting the claim but two or three questions ; they are generally these : " Out of what lands do you seek to regis- ter?" " How long are you in occupation of them?" " Are they worth to you 10 /., over and above the rent ?" The answer to those questions generally make out a prima facie case for the applicant. To rebut that case, I am obliged to go into a cross- examination, and I never knew an instance where, on the cross- examination of that case made by the applicant, we were enabled to show, not having credit for the labour expended in the holding, that he did not produce 10/. a year from the holding. 14716. Am I to understand that when you did produce evidence of credible persons to swear that a solvent tenant would not pay 10/. in addition to the rent, that it was not acted upon ?— That evidence Mr. Gibson distinctly told us was useless; and in consequence of that declaration made by him, we declined to continue the expense and trouble of producing evidence. 14717. You did, on several occasions, produce witnesses of that kind? — Yes. 14718. Did Mr. Gibson give any reason for that opinion?— That if we did not contradict the testimony of the applicant, he considered the testimony such as to entitle him to register; that the testimony of our witnesses did not con- tradict it. 147 19. That the fact that a solvent tenant would not give 10/. in addition to the rent was not of any value ?— He altogether disregarded it as a test. 14720. You heard of the opinion of the twelve judges, that that law was wrong?— I did. 14721. And that what a solvent tenant would give would be the fair value? — Yes. 14722. After that, did Mr. Gibson continue to give the same decisions ?— After that, at the Phillipstown quarter sessions in 1836, a man named Patrick Cronly applied to register out of nine acres of land, situate at River Lyons, lower half barony of Phillipstown. 14723. That was after the decision of the judges?— Yes; it was in Pheney's case the judges decided. 14724. Was Cronly opposed?— He applied to register out of nine acres of land'in River Lyons, for which he paid 4 /. 18 s. a year; he swore that he had a beneficial interest of 10 /. a year in the holding. On his cross- examination he was asked by me what the value of the land was, and, after some pressing, he swore he did not believe that a solvent tenant could give more than 1 /. 5 s. an acre for those nine acres. I asked him if a farm in the neighbourhood similar to that he held was to be let, whether he would give 1 /. 3s. an acre for it; and he would not undertake to swear he would ; and upon that I submitted to Mr. Gibson that, since the decision of the majority of the twelve judges m Pheney s case, this man not swearing his land was worth 10 /. a year, though he swore it was wor th to him 10/. a year, he should reject the applicant. He stated that, not considering there was an appeal under the Reform Act to the twelve 643. 3 c 2 judges,