SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. J J the usual answer, that the subjeet would be taken into consideration, but that M 6288 Was any reason assigned why the first suggestion with resnert to havrng the reg. trat. on of the city of Cork before the refol^ t^ l^ 6289. Do you know that there was a reason assigned, though it may not have T TP1"?? (;° mrniCati0n t0 the operation, for notXring the recorder of Cork to be the registering officer; that the recorder not beh" a public officer, but appointed by the corporation, would not be bound to act i heard that it was because he was a corporate officer, but I cannot say that it was from authority. - L 11 C. 290, You do not know that any such reason was assigned to the cor poration .-— They got no answer to it further than that the individuals to whom the observations were addressed replied that they should be taken into con sideration. 6291. How or where was it that you heard that that reason was assigned - I think it was Mr. Callaghan told me. 6292. Who did you understand assigned that reason?— I took it for granted that it was the Government that had determined upon it. 6293. That however would afford no reason for not having the registration in the city of Cork, though it might not be conducted by the recorder ?— No. I do not think it would. 6294. And it would not apply at all to the other observations, as to the im- portance of an annual revision ?— Not in the least. 629.5. The Committee have had some evidence already with respect to an improvement in the manner of making out the lists of persons who propose to claim to register; will you state in detail what your view of that amendment would be ?— The adoption of the English law. I11 England voters are classed, those who vote in right of property, or as connected with property, as house- holders, in lists made out parochially, or in other districts— parochially I believe in general; and those voters who do not vote in right of property, as freemen, are made out in separate lists. I would recommend that parochial lists should be made out, and that lists of other voters should be made out separately; that each list, whether parochial or otherwise, should be itself in alphabetical order; at present the whole mass is put into one list, creating the greatest confusion. 6296. Without reference to the nature of the qualification, or the place of ahode ?— Yes. Then I would suggest that it should be as it is in England, that each parochial list should be sent unencumbered by the list of names belonging to other places to the public officers of the parish, so that the people of that parish, when they came to look at the men who were claimants, should not have to look through the names of people whom they could not possibly know any- thing about, in order to select those whom they really might be expected to know. . . r , r • 1.1 6297. In this respect your suggestion would be an assimilation of the Irish law to the English ?— Exactly. . 6298 May there not be in Ireland some difficulty by reason of not having officers corresponding to overseers of the poor, whose duty it should be to make out lists in the parish ?— My attention has been directed to larger towns. In Enaland the overseers of the poor make out the lists annually in the first instance, and no man has the trouble of putting in a claim whom the overseer of the poor finds in his book as rated at 10/.; lie, of course, gives the name of every person of that description, and then such a person is not questioned. PeoVle are at liberty to claim, besides that; and if the overseer of the poor considers that any individual has no real claim, he has a right to mark J- objee- tion " and then the subject comes before the revising barrister. If any voter wishes to object to a claimant he must giye a written notice of it and the obiected to are all published by themselves, so that attention is ckawn to objectecito are anp j QUestionabie votes of each parish r^ SaSe^^^ Sno others. The stand as matter of course. . . , ,, advantage, that the persons / F P O. 4O.