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 VOTES, IRELAND. 36, ' SLS worth, without deducting rent or charges, 10/. a year, and then set another Mn Julian, Es,,. portion the rent of which was equivalent to the rent and the charges of the — entire, he would allow him to set off the rent of the portion set against the rent 11 July 1838. and charges of the entire. 14902. Then in fact he allowed him to qualify out of a farm of the entire of which he was not in possession ?— He did. 14903. The part of which he was in possession not being of itself competent to give him a value of 10/. a year?- Not deducting out of it that particular part of the rent and charges. 14904. Mr. O'Connell.] Did you object to a man registering under those cir- cumstances ?— Yes, I did, and urged my objection as strongly as possible. 14905. Although, in point of fact, the tenant to whom he had demised part paid a rent which amounted to the rent and charges upon the entire, and though the voter gave evidence that the residue was of the value of 10/. a year ?— That was the fact. 14906. Those were the circumstances ?— Yes. 14907. That was an objection you gave in?— Yes. The reason I state that to be the principle upon which Mr. Gibson professed to register was, that he declared it himself as his opinion. The view generally taken by the assistant barristers is, that if a person is in possession of so much land as produces 10/. a year over and above the portion of the rent and charges which may be payable out of the part he is in possession of, they will register him. 14908. But in your case the entire of the rent and charges was payable out of the part not in possession of the applicant ?— In the case I speak of the applicant was in possession of so much land as was worth 10/., without deduct- ing any rent or charges from that part of which he was so in possession. The rent and charges payable out of the entire holding were discharged by the rent payable by the under- tenant. 14909. So that the under- tenant paid the entire rent and charges; that was so ?— Yes, it was so. 14910. Then the applicant himself was in possession of that which he estimated at 10/. a year ?— That I conceive to be the principle. 14911. You are aware that all the assistant barristers have decided this, that if a part be let to a tenant, and the applicant be in the occupation of the rest, if the part that is let produces a clear rent, say of 5 /. a year, the entire rent and charges amounting to 10/. a year, the barrister first strikes off 5/., and adds to the remaining 5 /. the rent and charges to be deducted from the value of the part in the applicant's own possession ?— I am not sure that I understand that question. 14912. Is it not the general practice, as far as you know, that the assistant barrister, in case the applicant has parted to an under- tenant with a portion of his land, to give the applicant credit against his rent and charges for the amount of rent payable to him by his under- tenant ?— I believe that is not the practice. snmnolt up? iua.? 14913. Do you mean to say that that is not the practice, even where the occupier is in possession of so much land as would clear the 10/. a year, over and above the rest of the rent and charges not paid off by the amount of the under- tenant's rent ?— I do not think the general practice is to give any credit for any rent payable by the under- tenant; the general practice is, to take the part of which the applicant is in occupation, to ascertain the proportion of rent payable out of that part, to deduct the rent out of that part, and ascertain whether the remainder of what the tenant is in possession is worth 10/, a year, after the deduction. 14914. Then the practice which you conceive to exist is this, that suppose a man pays 10/. a year rent, and that his charges amount to 10/. a year more, making 20/., supposing that man to have in his own actual occupation 15/. worth of land clear, and that he has set to an under- tenant 18/. a year more ot the land, which under- tenant pays him that 18/. a year punctually, do you take that to be a case in which a man is not entitled to register r— It the part worth 15/. is liable for its proportion of the head rent, if that be a/, a year, and he have 10/. a year after that, over and above the rent and charges, I take it, under the general mode of registering he would be held entitled to register 14015. And you think a barrister would be wrong who gave a man credit, his rent and charges being 20/., for 18/. upon the land he had actually set to 643. 3° 3 a solvent