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 . 61 r< 7 7780. Mr. Tighe put more confidence in the skill of the actual occupier as Mr. G. Gardiner. to the value than in the skill of Mr. Robinson ?— He did. — — 7781. He said that, upon the point of value, the poor men were better judges 28 March l838- of the value than the gentlemen ?— He did. 7782. Mr. Lefroy.'] That the claimant, although he had an interest in swearing, was to be preferred, as a witness to the value, to an indifferent per- son ?— Yes. 7783. Mr. O'Connell] Have you ever objected to the claimant being exa- mined 011 oath ?— Never; he is the first person examined in all cases. 7784. And examined upon oath?— Yes. 7785. Chairman.] It appears by your memorandums that the claimant in this case stated that he formerly gave more rent than that w hich he was giving at the time of his deposition ?— He did; he held from a middle landlord before the lease expired, and paid a higher rent, and then after the lease expired he got a new one, and got the land for less. 7786. Did it appear at what period his new rent commenced?— I think I have the date of his lease. The lease is dated in June 1834. 7787. In June 1834 he contracted, therefore, to give how much?— The pre- sent rent is 16?. 19s. fid. 7788. What had he given for the same land previously ?— He stated that he had formerly paid the middle landlord two guineas. 7789. Then, in fact, in June 1834, his landlord consented to take how much less than he had taken before ?— About 14 s. an acre. It was not the landlord, but the middle landlord that charged him that before ; he had never paid it to the head landlord. 7790. Mr. O'Connell.] Mr. White was the head landlord ?— Yes. 7791. And it was from Mr. White that he took the lease latterly ?— Yes. 7792. And Mr. White gave it at 14s. fid. less than he had paid to the middle landlord ?— Yes. 7793. Chairman.] Did it appear whether this individual had paid any fine for his lease ?— No, he had not. 7794. Did it appear that this was supposed to be a fair rent as between land- lord and tenant ?— It is considered so. 7795. That wTas the way in which it came out in evidence?— Yes. 7796. Then, in the opinion of the landlord, this was a fair rent?— Yes. 7797. Mr. O'Connell] What evidence wras given as to the opinion of the landlord ?— None. 7798. Chairman.] Did anything appear to exclude the conclusion that it was a fair rent to be asked by the landlord, and to be given by the tenant ?— There was 110 investigation as to that. 7799. Did the man say that he had a good or a bad bargain ?— He states it to be a beneficial one; he states that it is worth 10/. a year to him. 7800. To that extent, then, he had a good bargain ?— Yes. 7801. Did he state anything to the effect that he had got a good bargain of his landlord in giving that amount of rent to his landlord for that holding ?— No, he did not. 7802. Mr. Lefroy.] Was the question put to him, whether a good and solvent tenant could afford to give him 10/. a year, or was he admitted upon merely swearing that it was to him worth 10/. a year?— That it was to him worth 10/. a year, and upon the support of the other person, Nolan, that was examined. ' 7803. He did not himself state that a good and solvent tenant could afford to give him 10 /. a year ?— No. 7804. According to his own valuation, it was Avorth a rent of two guineas an acre, and deducting the rent he paid, would it leave more than 8 /. and a few shillings profit ?— About 8 /. 8 s., 01* 8 /. 10 s. 7805. Mr. O'Connell] That is, he proved that before it fell into the hands of the head landlord, Mr. White he had paid to the middle man 8/. 14 s. more a year than he paid Mr. White ?— So he states. 7806. And that fact was not disputed ?— That fact we were not in posses- sion of. 7807. It was sworn to by him positively, and it was contradicted by nobody r — Yes. 643. 1 2 So