24T SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. sJ7' w C^.] ' Had you any subscriptions ?- Yes. H - » - - 6100. Had you a sufficient fund to enable you to meet the expenses vou W^ P put to in preparing for the registry ?— We had expenses > ou w ere fJT' Mr Serjeant Jackson ] The funds subscribed upon that occasion were for the purpose of registry, as contra- distinguished from the election Ss they had nothing to do with the election. ' les ' 6102. Mr Lefroy] Does not the section of the Irish Reform Act, pointing out the duty of the registering barrister, direct that he shall " ex S inquire as well by the oaths of the claimants as by any other evidence offered m support of, or m opposition to, such claim, whether such claimant is or is not to be registered as a voter for the county, city, town or borough, to which his claim shall relate" ?— It does. O103. " And shall also inquire by any of the means aforesaid, as he shall think tit, into the truth of the several particulars required by the provisions of this Act, or require to be stated in any oath by such claimant hereinafter pre- scribed to be taken for such registry ?"— It does. 6104. And notwithstanding that provision, you state that an inquiry was refused to be permitted to be made with respect to the 40 freeholders," as to their qualification ?— I do, as to the value. 6105. Chairman.'] Are you aware whether there was evidence tendered at those sessions for all the parties who came up to register their votes ?— I am aware that there was not evidence tendered for all the parties. 6106. Supposing that Mr. Meagher, of the city of Cork, stated that very par- ticular evidence was tendered, would that be a correct representation ?— Not as to all the persons. 6107. He was asked in question 2723, " Are you aware whether there was evidence tendered at that period," namely, in the registry of 1832, " for all the parties who came up to register their votes ?" and his answer was, " Very particular evidence." Do you consider that to be a correct representation ?— I am satisfied it was incorrect. 6108. In the same gentleman's evidence, No. 2/ 26, this question was put, " You conceive that there was every pains taken to ascertain the real value before the party was registered ?" and his answer is, " There was." Do you consider that to be a correct representation ?— I do not; because there was not an opportunity afforded of giving evidence as to the deficiency of value of a number of persons. 6109. You state that there was not an opportunity afforded your party of tendering such evidence as might correct misrepresentations as to the value of persons claiming to be registered ?— I do, from what I have already said of the rejection of the evidence of those persons Avhom we had employed for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the premises, and giving evidence as to the qualification of the parties. , 6110 Mr. Richard Gould, of the city of Cork, 111 answer to question 3948, " Can you- state whether there was the necessary examination gone through " before the parties were admitted to register?" says, " I certainly tlnnk there was!" Do you concur with him in that opinion ?- There was an examination of the voter himself, as to liis qualification. G111 Do you conceive that the examination necessary was gone through you ha3d speciaUy enjoined to instigate the eases ahsoiutely necessary m order to sift the claim r— It was. , _ 6114. And that was all excluded r- It was correct ?- wns not aUowed • to be produced. f Richard Gould, is to this effect 6116. Chairman.] Question 39o0, put to Mr. lucnau < f Dq N N 3 ,, f A lift