4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Richard Daly, Esq. 19 July 1838. ]\ Ir. T. Deelutv. 15558. In that case, did the claimant state his land had been increased in value subsequent to the preceding sessions ?— Yes, I think so, by building or otherwise. 15559. That is to say, his property, at the time of his preferring the claim before Mr. Gibson, was increased in the value that attached to it at the time he was rejected by the former barrister ?— It occurs to me as such. 15560. But in no case did Mr. Gibson admit a claimant who had been rejected by a former barrister, without some variation of value, or other circumstance, being adduced before him ?— I think not. 15561. Mr. O'Connell Have you prepared, since you were last examined, a more accurate statement, from your notes and the documents you have here, of the statistics of the King's County, in relation to the number of taxable acres, the population, and the persons registered ?— I have. 15562. Are you prepared to make that statement?— I am. I find the number of acres of arable land is 232,210 Irish p. measure, of bog 25,000; the number of acres taxed, as evidenced by the county book, is 135,932. The population of the King's County, by the census of 1831, is 150,000 ; the present population I presume to be about 160,000. The number of electors, at the time of the general registration of 1832 and 1833, was 1,309 ; in 1835 the number was 1,482 ; in 1837, 1,656; and up to February 1838, 1,969. By dividing the population by 1,600, the present disposable force of electors, deducting all casualties, death, emigration, & c. & c., the proportion to the population is one elector to 100 inha- bitants. By dividing the acreable surface, the proportion is one elector to 150 acres. The present number of 50 I. electors is 400 ; the number of 20 /. electors is 320, and the number of 10 /. electors is 1,189. If you deduct the 20 I. and 50/. from the 10 /., the majority of 10 /. electors is 319. Mr. Thomas Deehan, called in ; and Examined. 15563. Mr. O'Connell.] WHAT are you by profession ?— An attorney and solicitor. 15564. Where do you reside?— In Lower Gardiner- street, in the city of Dublin. 15565. What county are you a native of?— King's County. 15566. Are you well acquainted with the county, its inhabitants and soil?— I am. 15567. Did you attend in your professional character at the registry of that county in 1832 ?— I did at the general registry of 1832. 15568. The first under the Reform Act?— Yes. 15569. O11 whose behalf did you attend?— I attended as the professional agent of the Honourable Frederick Ponsonby, brother to Lord Ponsonby, who possessed a considerable property in the county, which he inherited from Mr. Dennis Bowes Daly. 15570. Mr. Cosgreave, I believe, was registering barrister ?— He was. 15571. Mr. Cosgreave being the registering barrister, did it appear to you that the inclination of his mind was Conservative, or what we call Liberal ?— I think, in all his decisions he had a decided leaning to Conservatism, and to construe the Reform Act very strictly. 15572. Were the Liberal claimants opposed by counsel and agents, and if so, by whom ?— The Liberal claimants were opposed by Mr. M'Keown, as counsel, and by Mr. Baker, who is a parliamentary agent in London, as agent. 15573- In point of fact, did Mr. Cosgreave allow the title- deeds of the claimants to be examined by the opposite party ?— He did not. 1.5574' Can you state any inconveniences that would occur to the claimants, in case their title- deeds were examined ?— My impression is, that it would be very inconvenient to many; as an instance, I would state that of my own case: as being a registered freeholder of that county, I claimed to register as a free- holder; my title- deed was my marriage settlement, which, of course, had reference to many other matters exclusive of the conveyance of that property out of which I claimed the franchise. 15575- And of course it would not be desirable to you to produce it?— No; ] t has reference to other settlements and other properties, such as money in the funds, the portion that I had received with my wife; those matters which I should be very sorry to have made public. 15576. The u / p U I