SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 4,> 9 15091. You have omitted one ingredient, viz. the term?— The term also • the term was particularly attended to, inasmuch as the term and rent regulated the value of the stamp. c 15092. Did he state the amount of the stamp ?— He did. 15093. When Mr. Cosgreave had made those statements, was he in the habit of allowing the opponent of the claim to inspect the lease ?— Never • at the very outset of the registry that general principle was laid down by him ' and acquiesced in by all parties. 15094. Did he state upon what principle he withheld that inspection In fact, I must candidly admit, that the principle was founded upon an objection which arose on my side; I saw evidently that the landlords were inimical to their tenantry being registered; they crowded the court; and it was an impres- sion on our minds that if there were any flaws or any defects, in the way of violation of covenants, those landlords might lay hold of them ' at a future day, and use them as an engine of oppression against their tenants, in case they should not vote according to their political views. 15095. But did it not occur to you that those landlords must have had counterparts of those instruments ?— Certainly; and I stated the circumstance, that they were fully sensible of the import of each lease. 15096. Then your objection to showing the leases could have very little force if the landlords had counterparts ?— The principal objection was this : if there were a penal covenant in the lease, and a question were put to the tenant, did he do such and such acts as would amount to a violation of that covenant, then undoubtedly the landlord being present, he might avail himself of those admissions for the purpose of oppression at a future day. i 5097. How many did Mr. Cosgreave register r— He registered about 1,309. 15098. What was the principle that Mr. Cosgreave applied as the test of value ?— The principle, as far as I recollect it, was this : he took the average value of the produce, and deducted from that all the expenses incidental to the cultivation of the farm, and if there was a balance of profit in favour of the tenant of 10/., he registered him. 15099. Did he deduct the rent ?— Yes. 15100. And the tithes ?— With regard to the tithes it was considered at one time by us that the claimant might be entitled to credit for tithes, but that was afterwards waived. As far as I recollect he deducted the tithes. With regard to county cess, he always allowed for county cess, for I believe the Act of Parliament is very explicit on the matter; he valued the labour, and if there was a net profit of 10/. over and above the rent, and other charges, he regis- tered that man. 15101. Over and above the rent and general charges ?— Yes. 15102. That is, if there was a clear 10/. over and above labour, seed, manure, expenses of cultivation, rent, and tithes ?—' Yes, tithes in the majority • of cases. , ' . .- . ' 15103. Who took the registry after Mr. Cosgreave ?— Mr. Howley was the assistant barrister; Mr. Cosgreave's office being of a temporary nature, the moment the general registration ceased Mr. Howley assumed the functions of registering barrister, by virtue of his office. " 15104. Did he act upon the same principle as Mr. Cosgreave, or a different principle ?— Upon the same principle, both as to the investigation of tithe with regard to the production of title- deeds, and also as to forming the estimate of what ought to constitute a beneficial interest. 15105. Who succeeded Mr. Howley ?— Mr. Howley was succeeded by Mr. Lisle, the present Second Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer; he only regis- tered for one quarter sessions, when lie was appointed to his present office. 15106. Did he adopt the same principle as Mr. Howley and Mr. Cosgreave .— He did, as far as I recollect it. . , 15107. Was there an attendance during Mr. Howley s and Mr. Lisle s time, on the part of the Conservatives ?- There was ; Mr. Mitchell, who is a practising attorney at the quarter- sessions courts in the King's County attended and he gave opposition to every claimant that was produced on the Liberal side. 15108. Did he oppose with as much activity and zeal as Mr. Baker had done?— He opposed with as much activity and zeal, beyond a doubt; but he had not so much tact as Mr. Baker. 15109. Who succeeded Mr. Mitchell ?— Mr. Julian. 3 p 2 151 10. illO