V 76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. G. Gardiner, he has now six months of possession ; he got it from his father for 21 years, provided the father's interest so long continued, or for the lives of Thomas L. 30 March 1838. Nugent, or the lessor. Counsel contended that the lessor's interest might cease before the term of years, and then it would cease to be a freehold. The court required the father's lease to be then produced; but it was so defaced and worn, it could not be ascertained. Court requested the counsel to ascertain whether the father's interest continued. Claimant was examined; said lie read part of it the last time, about five years ago ; could not recollect now what the contents were, or what term it was for. Afterwards, being re- examined, he said it was for 20 years, or Mr. Nugent's life." 8009. Mr. French.] Was Mr. Nugent alive ?— He was. 8010. Then in this instance the lessor's title was inquired into by the bar- rister ?— It was. 8011. The tenant holding under the lease was in possession ?— Yes. 8012. The statement was, that the lessor's title was still in existence for the life of Mr. Nugent ?— The statement of the claimant was. 8013. Mr. Lefroy?] What was the tenure of the claimant?— Twenty- one years, provided the father's interest so long continued. 8014. Then it was, as being necessary to make out the claimant's own title, that the title of his father was inquired into ?— It was. 8015. That did not come within the principle upon which the barrister had upon former occasions refused to enter into the lessor's title ?— No. 8016. It was part of the claimant's own title?— Yes. 8017. He could have had no title unless he had shown the nature of his father's title ?— Yes. 8018. Have you a note of the case of John Farrell, of Lisburn?— John Farrell, and a good many other claims, were investigated before a Committee in April 183/, and they were given up as cases not to be supported 011 value; his, and about 10 more, were given up by the counsel as not having value. 8019. When were those cases investigated before the Committee ?— In 183/. 8020. Will you mention the names?— John Cody, John Farrell, Bryan Jordan, Bryan Kearney, Owen M'Manace, James M'Cormack, John Chapman, Thomas Green, Thomas M'Cormack, and Barnard M'Guiness, and others. 8021. Those were persons whose qualification was impeached as insufficient by objections taken before the Committee in April 1837 — Yes, upon grounds of insufficiency of value in April 1837. 8022. And they were given up by the counsel as not being sustainable, as not having a qualification sufficient to entitle them to remain upon the poll ?— Yes. 8023. Were any of those men subsequently put on the register by Mr. Tighe ? — Those persons remain upon the register, and have polled since, but there are persons that have been re- registered since that were taken off in 1837. 8024. Did any of those persons who still remain upon the register vote at the last election ?— They all voted, all the ten I have named. 8025. Were those part of the voters objected to upon the last petition ?— They were; I caused cautionary notices to be served upon all those that lived in the two baronies convenient to me, to caution them against voting. 8026. But they voted, and the Committee that sat this year refused to entertain any inquiry as to their qualifications ?— Those persons were included in the 82 that voted. 8027. Those names still remain upon the register?— Yes. 8028. And must remain, if The House of Commons do not entertain the juris- diction of investigating the register ?— They must. 8029. Mr. Beamish. Till eight years are expired ?— Till it is necessary for them to renew the qualification. 8030. Mr. M. J. O'Connell.] You say they were given up by the counsel; were you present in the Committee of The House of Commons when those votes were investigated ?—' Yes ; I heard the opening of almost every case, and I read the evidence. 8031. Do you mean that the counsel examined 110 witnesses in support of the votes ?— In some instances they examined a witness, but when they found the value was not sufficient they gave them up, for they did not produce any evidence to support the vote. 8032. Was that according to the decisions to which the Committee had previously comer— The Committee had previously investigated cases, heard witnesses