SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 4,> 9 recollect one case in which Mr. Howley rejected a man whose lease contained a R non- alienation clause; the old sub- leasing- Act was in operation at that time and m my humble judgment, Mr. Howley was wrong in rejecting the claimant. ' 15514. Was the person claiming an assignee ?— He was a lessee ; and because he sub- let a rood of his land Mr. Howley rejected him. There has been a decision 111 the superior courts of Ireland that such a sub- lessee could be turned out, and the landlord could not be deemed a trespasser, for it was a null and void Act. 15515- Chairman.'] What was the name of that claimant?— I do not recollect. 15516. V » hat sessions was it at?— 1 believe in 1834, or about that time. 15517. 1 ou cannot state the particular sessions?— Indeed I cannot; I have a recollection of the circumstance, and the impression 011 my mind was, that Mr. Howley made an erroneous decision with regard to that lessee. 15518. Mr. O' Connell.] Do you remember 011 whose side the voter came forward ?— He came forward on the Liberal side. 15519. Chairman.'] Do you mean to state it is illegal, under the Reform Act, to ascertain whether the claimant has paid his rent to the landlord ?— No, I do not go so far as that; I consider it is a very proper question to put. 15520. Do you think it would be proper to ascertain what is called the posses- sion and perception of rent, by such means?— No, I think such a question may be put to him, " Do you pay such rent ?" 15521. Then do you mean to state that it is improper to invalidate the title of the landlord upon cross- examination, though it is not necessary for the land- lord's title- deeds to be produced ?— I do. 15522. You mean to say that is your construction of the Act of Parliament? — Yes. 15523. You are aware it is stated it shall not be necessary to produce the title- deeds of the landlord ?— Yes. 15524. Do you conceive those words are so extensive as to preclude any case being made out of bad title by means of the cross- examination of the claimant ? — I do, upon two principles : first, upon a principle founded upon my humble view of the latter part of the 16th section of the Reform Act; secondly, upon the principle that no man is bound to furnish evidence that would invalidate his own claim, or disturb his own title : and I would go further ; in the third place, where the title is presumed in law to be founded upon a deed or written instru- ment, that he shall not be allowed to contravene that title by parol testimony ; and the production of his own lease affords a presumption in law that that deed was carved out of a written instrument. 15525. Do you mean to say that the production of the lease is so conclusive, in your view of the law, that it ought not to be impugned by even the confession of the party of a want of title in the lessor ?— I do, because it is a maxim in law that fraud is not to be presumed against any individual, but it must be proved by extrinsic evidence, and not the evidence of the individual himself. 15526. You mean to state, your view of the law is, that fraud cannot be proved even by the confession of the party ?— I consider the constitution of this realm undoubtedly will not constrain a claimant to impeach a transaction to which himself is a party with a taint of a fraudulent nature, through his own mouth. 15527. Mr. O'Connell.] You do not mean to say there is any rule of evi- dence which protects a person from disclosing a civil fraud ?— No; I will not go so far as that. 15528. For example, if his lease were fraudulently obtained, any fraudulent circumstances might be proved by parol ?— Certainly ; but this is to affect the landlord's title. 15529. Chairman.] Is it your opinion that the claimant may support his title to vote bv his own evidence, and that he shall not be subject to cross- examma- tion upon those points to which he has deposed ?— Clearly not; that is not my opinion. 15529*. Is it your opinion that he may produce as his warranty for voting, or claim to vote, * a document, and he should be protected from any action at law by being subject to questions in regard to that document ?— Clearly not. 15530. Then if he be subject to questions with regard to that document, do you mean to state no weight in the decision, upon the propriety of his claim to vote, is to attach to any confessions he may make during that inquiry r- Wo; 643. * 312 but