S E L E C T COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 36, ' SLS claimed as a 10/. freeholder; holds 10 J acres of the land of Lemonagham, at * v ^ , r 14s. 6d. an acre under a lease for lives; is 12 years in possession ; proved bene- ficial interest. On cross- examination by Mr. Julian, on behalf of the Conserve tives, he stated that his lease was made the 27th of August last; that he never had a lease or writing till then Mr. Julian submitted he was not entitled to register ; that the Act required the applicant to be in possession of the freehold six months before the registration. Mr. Daly, contra, relied on several decisions of his worship, establishing the principle, that if the claimant was six months in possession, it signified not at what time before the sessions his lease was signed Mr. Julian then said, " This is a case of mere naked possession, without any° title legal or equitable; he had no promise which could be enforced in equity' whether parol or otherwise; it is one of those cases involving a principle of importance, for if persons circumstanced as this man is are allowed to pass, the object of the statute to prevent occasionality is effectually defeated. ' Mr Hudson, who goes great lengths in aid of the franchise, does not hold any such doctrine as that contended for." Upon a question from the assistant barrister, the applicant said he had improved the lands, and laid out money upon them. The objection was overruled, and the applicant admitted. 15021. Are there any other instances which you can name?— The case of John Egan, registered at the January sessions 1838; he had been rejected at the October sessions preceding, upon the same objection; and although the six months had not expired, he was nevertheless admitted at the following sessions. William Egan registered at the same sessions; this applicant also was rejected at the October sessions 1837; and although the six months had not elapsed from the period of the execution of his lease, he was nevertheless admitted. 15022. Mr. Curry.'] How many years had those two Egans been in posses- sion of the lands ?— John Egan was 30 years in possession. 15023. How many years had William Egan been in possession?— He stated he was living on the land since he was born, and that he had the promise of a lease for 18 years, but not defining the term in any one way, or the rent. 15024. But 18 years before he had had the promise of a lease?— Yes, that is William Egan; John Egan, I think, also stated the same, but he did not state how long. 15025. Did either of those persons state that the rent reserved by the leases differed from that which was paid at the time the promise was made to them ? — I do not think either of them stated that, but they both admitted the term had not been defined in any way. 15026. Did they state that it was not to be a lease for lives?— They did not define the term in any one way. 15027. Did they state it was not to be a lease for lives ?— No, they did not. 15028. In the case of Thomas Murray and John Carroll and the two Egans, the barrister said he thought they had an equitable title?— In the former cases I have stated he did say so. 15029. With respect to Murray and Carroll, the barrister stated he thought they had a good equitable title ?— Yes ; with regard to John Egan, he stated he was bound to presume, when he found the lease executed, that it was executed in compliance with the promise previously made; those two applicants had been rejected at the former sessions upon that ground. 15030. Mr. Litton.] Are there any other instances you can mention by name; you need not go into any further particulars?— There is the case of James M'Keown; he was registered at the sessions of January 1838; William M'Keown was registered at the same sessions; John Madden was registered at the same sessions, subject to the same objection; Peter Claffy was registered at the same sessions, subject to the same objection, and he had been rejected at the October sessions preceding upon the same ground, and admitted at these sessions, although the period had not elapsed. Daniel Moran was admitted, subject to the same objection ; he registered at the sessions 01 April 1837 ; he had been rejected at the sessions of October 1836 upon the same ground, and, although the period had not elapsed in his case also, he was admitted. 15031. Mr. Curry.] Surely he had been six months in possession JNo ; but I will refer to the particulars of the case : he stated his lease was dated the bth of February 1836, seeking to register at the sessions of April 1837; he stated on cross- examination, that it was about a week before the October sessions the ease was signed; the October sessions were held towards the end of the month, [ know; they were held the 25th of October, and the April sessions on the 4th 643- 3 E 3