V 76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. Patrick Flood. S4S0. You say that 12 acres were let for 221 14; was that a recent letting or an old letting ?— It must have been a very old lease. 8 May 1838. 8481. How long has it expired ?— Not longer than 12 or 14 months. 848" At what rent is it let now ?— I believe Mr. Grattan will give the man the land at about the same or something less; I think he has a great wish for that man, and he promised him a long time ago that when the lease was out, he would'not raise it on him. 848 1 Then it is to be renewed upon the same terms or less t— 1 cannot say, but I believe that Mr. Grattan will not charge more; I should think much about the same. 8484. Or, if any alteration, less ?— I do not say that he would let it at less, for I know he would be offered a great deal more money for it if it was in the iiicirkct 8485. But from what you understand of Mr. Grattan, he is about to renew it upon tlie same terms ?— I should think so; the man told me that he did not expect that Mr. Grattan would raise it on him. 8486. That makes it about 34 s. an acre?— Yes. 8487. Mr. Curry.-] Will you mention the name of any other person whose name was struck off by the Committee of 1833, whose land you afterwards inspected and valued in 1835, in the barony of Granard?— I only attended up to the June sessions of 1835. 8488. Did you value any other farm at the same time that you valued that farm ?— No ; I valued other farms when I served notices for them. 8489. Were those persons for whom you served notices, and whose farms you viewed and valued, registered ?— A good number of them were. 8490. Can you turn to the names of any whose farms you viewed, and whose names you registered ?— Christopher Fitzsimons was admitted by Mr. French in the sessions of 1833. 8491. Did you view his farm previous to his having been admitted in 1833 ? — I did. 8492. Have you any note of it ?— No ; I brought other people to give testimony. 8493. Are there any other persons wThose farms you viewed for the purpose of ascertaining their value, who were registered either at the sessions of 1832, or at the sessions of 1835 ?— Yes ; there is a man of the name of Peter Arley, of Kilfenton. 8494. Have you an entry of that valuation in your book ?— Yes, I have. 8495. How many acres did Peter Arley hold?— Something near 19 acres. Arley's farm is rather a bulk farm. 8496. What rent did he pay by the year ?— I think about 28 I., but I have not marked it here. I did not go into the particulars of it, but it was assigned by the father; the father paid 116 /. fine for the farm, and gave it to his son. The man proved that before the barrister, Mr. French. 8497. What sessions was lie registered at?— In June 1835, I think. 8498. Was he opposed when he came up to register?— He was. 8499. Was he admitted ?— He was. 8500. Was his vote afterwards canvassed before the committee ?— It was. It appears in the book in the Evidence of 183/. 8501. Was it admitted or rejected?— It was struck off. 8502. In your judgment would a solvent tenant have given 10 I a year to Arley for his farm above the rent he paid for it ?— He would certainly. 8503. Keeping in view what you understand by " beneficial interest," what beneficial interest do you think Peter Arley had yearly out of that farm ?— It was 111 the year 1835 that I went upon the land. It was in the April sessions that he was first admitted. There was a wrong notice, and he had to go ao- ain. It was m the June sessions that he was admitted; it was a long leasehold interest, 99 years. 8504.? What, in your opinion, understanding as you do the term " beneficial interest, was that man's beneficial interest in his farm ?— I think he could not have less than 40/. to 50/. beneficial interest. 8505. Chairman ] When was Peter Arley's claim first brought forward ?— In 1835, to my knowledge. 8506. Was it rejected then or admitted ?— It was admitted, but he had a wrong