23 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TIIE Mr. Henry Barry, the public officer, whose especial duty it is to be accurate upon this subject, should — J have made a mistake?-! was particularly accurate m my inspection of the 8 March 1838. rate- receipts at the time, in order to enable me to give evidence betore the then sitting Committee. MI 5- 66 Without at all doubting that you took the best possible means that you could to satisfy your own conscience as to the facts you intended to depose to, yet nevertheless, considering how you were situated, and the sources from which your information must necessarily have been derived, from persons of whom you had 110 previous knowledge, must it not be more likely that you should labour under a mistake upon such a subject as this than that a public officer, whose special duty it was to be accurate upon this subject, and who had the means of referring to original documents upon this subject matter, should be under a mis- take ?— It is rather strange that we should differ. 5- 6-. Particularly in two successive instances, which are both similarly cir- cumstanced. You have stated, with reference to both of them, that you were satisfied that the rates were paid, and the public officer states that both of them were absolved from the payment of rates, and that they have never paid rates since. Is not that very extraordinary ?— It is very strange. 5768. Mr. Beamish.] Did you visit the house of John Hickenson, of Den- roche's Cross ?— 1 did. 5769. Did you ascertain the rent he paid ?— It does not state here that I did. 5770. Did you ascertain whether he had paid rates ?— He had paid rates. 5771. Did you see his receipt?— I did. 5772. Were you satisfied that he had value for 10 /. ?— Yes. 5773. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] What wras the amount of rate he paid?— I did not usually set that down; but it appears that in this instance I have it set down; it is 1 /. 2 s. 7 I d. 5774. Whose receipt was it?— I do not know; it wras the rate- collector's re- ceipt at that time. 5775. Then all you know is, that you find there R. P.?— R. P. and the amount. 5776. But you have no recollection of the individual, or of the document?— The rate- receipt was produced to me by Mr. Richard Gould. 5777. Then it was not at the house that you saw it?— No, I do not think it was. 5778. Where was it you saw it ?— I am not sure ; but by his producing it to me it could not have been at the house, because he was not with me. 5779- Were you at the house yourself?— I was. 5780. Then Mr. Gould showed you the receipt at some other time, and some other place ?— Yes. .5781. Did he get possession of the receipt?— I think he did; it was paid, I believe, before the time of voting, to make him eligible to vote. 5782. Who paid it ?— I do not know ; I suppose it was paid immediately before the election. 5783. By whom do you suppose ?— I cannot say. Mr. Gould produced the receipt to me. 5784- Ho you mean that it is your belief that the rate was paid for him by some other person ?— No, it is not. ' Mr. Gould was a very active man at that time, and I must, have found that this man was rated, and that his receipt was not produced. I conclude that I asked him, and that he produced the receipt to me. . 5785. Have you an impression that rates were paid preparatory to the elec- tion for persons that had not paid the rates?— I believe there were rates paid tor persons. There are instances here where persons went and brought their receipts to me for rates that had been paid immediately previous to their voting. J r 5786. What persons ?— Different voters. 5787. Who were the persons that paid for them?— I do not know. The re- ceipts that were produced to me by the voters themselves, appeared to me as having been paid immediately previous to the time of voting. 5788. You say that you believed the rates were paid for some persons that Had not themselves paid the rates ?— I have nothing to make me believe it. themselve* ^ ^ ^ heheXe it?~ I rather tllink that the) r must have Pald 5790; With