S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O N F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D .36, ' SLS 14422. Mr. French.] But at this moment you cannot mention any particular instance of the kind r— I cannot, at this moment, mention any particular instance of that description. 14423. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.'] Are you able to state on which side the greater number of notices of claims to register were given, for the general registry sessions of 1832.'— I cannot say, from positive knowledge; but the general im- pression was, that the great majority were upon the Liberal interest. 14424. Can you say whether it would most have promoted the interest of the Liberal party, as they are called, or of the Conservative party, as they are called to do away with checks in the investigation of the claims to register?— My im- pression is, that it would serve the Conservative interest to have as many checks as possible. I have known many instances myself where persons, whom it was attempted to bring forward upon the Conservative interest, declined to take the oath as to value, although they had passed the assistant barrister's investigation. 14425. Can you state the same fact with regard to persons upon the other side ?— I am not aware of any upon the other side ; I do not say that there were none, because I could not have the same opportunity of knowing. 14426. Were not you in court during the process of the registry ?— I was. 14427. And attending equally to the registry, whether it bore upon the Con- servative 01* the Liberal interest ?— Up to the decision of the assistant barrister ; beyond that I know nothing. The taking of the affidavit is subsequent to the decision of the assistant barrister, and therefore, except from personal knowledge, or something of that kind, I could not, as a person taking a report in court, have any knowledge of the parties declining to take the oath. 14428. Mr. French.] In fact you would not have known of it in the case of the Conservatives, but for the circumstance of your being engaged for the Conservative party?— Certainly not. 14429. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Is not the oath tendered in open court?— It usually is tendered at the foot of the table, but not publicly; it is generally known by the agent for either party, and done without coming under the notice of the court. 14430. It is, however, always transacted in court, and at the time of the registry, so that it cannot be said to be private ?— It cannot be said to be private, but it is such a circumstance as would not be noticed by a person taking a note of the proceedings. The clerk of the peace always notes it, as matter of course; he knows who has not taken the oaths. He cannot know for what reason they decline taking the oath, but he knows whether they have or not taken the oath after having their claim investigated. 14431. Mr. French.] You stated that at the general registry in 1832 the Liberal party out- numbered the Conservative party very much ; since the registry of 1832 the increase has been still greater, has it not?— One can hardly compare a general registry with particular registries, but at every registry since 1832, with the exception of one or two, I think the Liberal party have had the preponderance, but this I speak not from actual knowledge. 14432. Lord Oxmantown was returned in 1832 ?— He was. 14433. And afterwards he resigned, and Colonel Westenra was returned ?— He afterwards resigned, but at the general registry of 1832 ( this I can state from my own knowledge) the leading interest of the county, that is, the interests connected with persons who have represented the county, were under the im- pression that every 1 o/. freeholder whom they could get upon the registry was a voter for themselves ; in fact, they were not at all known as Conservatives, but Lord Rosse actually had his agent at the registry of 1832, aiding and assisting in putting those 10 I. freeholders and leaseholders upon the register. 14434. Did those persons of the Conservative party who had passed the bar- rister, and who afterwards refused to take the oath, give any reason for their refusing?— I cannot say that they gave any particular reason, except 111 one instance, the person declined because he did not conceive that the premises were of 10?. value. 14435. Will you state the name of that person ?— I could not mention the name. 14436. Then you cannot state whether that person had sworn before the bar- rister that they were of the value of 1 o I. ?— He swore, not that they were of the value, for the assistant barrister never required it, but that he derived out of the land a profit of 10 /. a year; that he made it by his own exertions and industry. 643. " z z 4 14437- Then