2 7- MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. 0. E. Barber. 12 March 1838. 278 « Do you conceive, generally speaking, that any number of persons were admit- ted upon the register who had no right to be so, by want of value of their pre- mises?" his answer is, " There may have been a few, but, generally speaking, there was the strictest inquiry." Does that answer agree with your ideas upon the subject ?— It does not. 611- Do you mean to say that there were many persons put upon the register who, from want of value, had no right to be put upon it ?— I do. 6118 You state further, that your party were precluded by that decision from bringing forward sufficient evidence to ascertain the real value ? I do. 0110 Do you apply that answer to parties registering out of the city of Cork, as well as to parties registering out of the suburbs and the liberties ?— I apply it to all; to the whole extent of the franchise. . 6120. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] If there was any difference 111 the classes, would it not" apply more strongly to those that resided in the country districts, because you could have less means of checking them ?— It applies to all. 6121. Chairman.] With reference to this case of Joseph Ahern, were you able to produce any evidence to prove that that individual was not in possession of the house out " of which he attempted to register?— Not at the time that he was brought forward to register; subsequently we had evidence of it. 6122. Was that case disposed of before you had the means of giving evidence of it ?— It tvas. 6123. Did you tender any evidence upon that point to the registering bar- rister subsequently to the decision ?— After the man was registered we called an agent, who was in the habit of receiving the rent of the premises, to show the value; the answer was, that he was already registered, and that it could not be opened. 6124. Then you first of all objected to Joseph Ahem being placed upon the register, and tendered evidence to impugn the value of his premises, and to impugn his possession of them, and that evidence was rejected, because it was objected that the witness who was to give that evidence was a paid person, and that therefore his evidence was not receivable ?— Yes. 6125. Then his name was put upon the register, and subsequently to his name being put upon the register, you came forward with unimpeachable evi- dence, namely., the receiver of the rent of the tenement, to the effect that the house and premises were not of the value of 10 I., and also that the premises were not in his possession ?— Yes, upon the same day. 6i 2G. That witness not being a paid party ?— That witness not being a paid party. 6127. Nevertheless the barrister refused to re- consider the case, and per- mitted his name to continue upon the register, leaving you without any remedy ? — Yes. 6128. And therefore it remains, of course, to this day ?— It does. 6129. And it can only be struck off by the medium of a Committee of the House of Commons ?— Yes. 6130. And if the Committee of the House of Commons determined not to open the register, it cannot be struck off at all till the period of eight years has elapsed r— Yes; there has been a dictum of an assistant barrister, that if he comes forward within the eight years, and produces his certificate of his former registry, he shall be registered again for another eight years, and then we have still no remedy. 6131. Who is the registering barrister that gave that opinion ?— Mr. Martley. 6132. Did you hear Mr. Martley give that opinion?— I did not; I understood that the question was brought forward and tried at a very late sessions, in the case of a Mr. Roche, who was in France. 6133. Mr. F French.] Are you aware of any barrister having differed from that dictum of Mr. Martley ?— I am not; I never heard of any other case. 0134. You are aware that the law is, that the man is entitled to register on his former certificate as prima facie evidence of the value, unless evidence is produced to contradict it?— As far as I am a judge that appears to me to he the law, and Mr. Martley has so decided. 0135. Then you do not question the correctness of the decision of Mr. Martleyf — 1 do not feel myself competent to object to Mr. Martley's decision, if he has decided it so, . ' 0136. Mr. Lefroy.] But whether that opinion be well or ill founded, if the registering