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 14603. And to the admission of fictitious votes?— Certainly. „ v r 14604. Will you explain to the Committee why you think so ?— Havino- this q' very case before us, I should say there was no check whatever upon the grantor 6 July 1838 under such circumstances; he did not purport to convey any particular title • and though the instrument contained a covenant for good title, yet it did not express what the title conveyed was. 14605. Then the fraud it would open a door to would be, that of a person professing to convey, without having any title whatever ?— Precisely so. 14606. Or any possession whatever?— Or any possession whatever; it is possible such a thing might be done. 14607. And if this principle had been generally known in the country as one which the barristers acted upon, do you not think " it would have produced many frauds ?— I think it is not at all improbable that it would. 14608. Of the nature you have described?— Of the nature described. 14609. Mr. Lefroy.] Would it not have enabled any man who held merely as a yearly tenant to produce an instrument of that sort, and, coupling it with his possession, to have been registered as a bond fide freeholder ?— I think it would have that effect. 14610. Mr. Litton.'] Then have you a doubt, from what you saw practised at the registration of which you speak, that if that principle were generally known to be established by the barrister, it would lead to a vast mass of fraud of the description you have named?— I think it most probable it would have been availed of for the purpose of improperly creating votes. 14611. Is there any other instance of that description under the head of not receiving evidence, which showed that the person who made the lease had no title ?— There is another case; but I think the other case is not material in its facts, and may possibly be passed over. 14612. Is there a case illustrative of that principle of refusing evidence to show the person who made the lease had no title?— I do not think it applies to this case; I have merely a note that Mr. Julian was stopped in cross- examining the applicant as to his father's title or right to make a lease to him. 14613. What was his name ?— James Harrington; registered at the sessions of October 1836. 14614. Was he tendered by the Liberals?— He was. 14615. And was he opposed by the Conservatives ?— He was. 14616. By whom?— By Mr. Julian, on the part of the Conservatives. 14617. Will you state the facts of that case?—" This applicant produced a lease, dated the 22d October 1836 ; he was objected to as not being six months in possession; but it appeared that the applicant was 33 years in possession before the lease was made; that the lease was made by his father, who held under Mr. Armstrong. The objection was overruled, and the applicant was admitted. Mr. Julian wax stopped in his attempt to cross- examine this appli- cant as to his father's right or title to make a lease to him." That is my note of the case. 14618. He was stopped by the assistant barrister?— He was. 14619. Mr. Curry.] You are perfectly well acquainted with the provisions of the Reform Bill ?— Indeed I cannot say 1 am perfectly well acquainted with them. 14620. Are you aware of the provision in the 16tli section which directs " that no person shall be bound to produce the title- deeds of any landlord under whom he may hold or derive, or make proof of such title, and that possession, and the perception of rent shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such landlord's title " ? — I am aware of that. 14621. In this case of Harrington, he had been in possession 33 years, you say?— He had, previous to the execution of his lease; his lease was a very late lease; his lease was executed in October 1836. . 14622. And at what sessions did he come forward to be registered .'— At that very sessions, in October 1836. As to this objection, we have not come to that yet. !'-'•" or 14623. But, in point of fact, he had been 33 years in possession of that very land which was comprised in the lease which he produced at the registry .— - iKes IFOY ob teiFL giotov suoifi; bfl fo noisaimhs bur, BJM* ri of TOO!) J? rtpqo ' • • 14624. Now, how do you understand that expression, " that the tenant shall not be bound to make proof of his landlord's title" ?- The way that I understand that 643. 3B3 expression