\ 10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE T. Courtenay, Esq. 6620. Would it be in the power of the revising barrister to force the parties to — register in their respective divisions ?— As regards the division of Ballymahon it 23 March 1838. would; and since the Reform Bill there has been a separate list kept tor that division. G621 Mr O'Connell.] Are you not aware that at present every man must register in his own division or not at all?— I was going to explain how the county of Longford is situated in that respect. For the division of Ballymahon, as we call it, a very small end of the county, there has been a separate list printed ever since this Act, and all the persons upon that list have been obliged to attend, and it is not called at anywhere else but Ballymahon ; but the great extent of the country is in Granard and Longford. 6622. Mr. Curry.~\ Are they in the same division ?— They are, and there is 110 distinction drawn, so that we have the full list called over in Granard, and we have it called over in Longford; and if another registry were to take place without a division, as between those two districts, the inconvenience would be just as bad as it was upon the former occasion. 6623. Mr. Lefroy.] Then it would be desirable to alter that section so as to divide the registry of those two divisions, Granard and Longford ?— I conceive so. 6624. After the first registry under the Reform Act the registration devolved upon the ordinary assistant barrister of the county ?— Yes, the chairman of the county. 6625. That was Mr. French?— Mr. George French. 6626. Were any applications made to him to put back upon the register any of those that had been struck off by the Committee of the House of Commons for want of qualification ?— Notices were served for them, and they appeared and claimed to register again. 6627. On the identical qualification?— On the same qualification; the notices were for re- registry. 6628. Was it simply upon the certificate, or upon the merits ?— They tendered themselves for examination on the merits. 6629. Mr. 0' Connell ] Those notices were in fact for an original registry, being only a re- registry, inasmuch as it was the second time they claimed ?—' Precisely ; an original registry. 6630. Mr. Lefroy.] In those cases did they offer evidence of any improvement in the qualification ?— Mr. French at first refused to entertain the claims; he received evidence of the Speaker's warrant, and of the proceedings before the Com- mittee, and said he conceived he had no power to re- register them. 6631^ Did he refuse them in any case in which they offered to show an improve- ment in their farms, or an additional value accruing from any other cause ?— He refused to listen to them at all at first. 6632. Did he adhere to that course ?— He did not. 6633. When did he change his course ?— Shortly before he resigned the chair- manship of the county. 6634. When was that?— January 1837 was his last sitting. C635. Did he admit upon that occasion any of those whom he had rejected on former occasions ?— He did. 6636. To what amount in number?— Many. 6637. The question refers to those taken off the register?— He admitted some of those taken off the register. 6638. Did they prove any additional qualification, or any improvement of their original qualification upon those occasions ?— No. 6639. Then he admitted them to register upon the very identical qualification upon which they had been struck off the poll and the register by a Committee of Ihe House of Commons?— He did. 6640. Was the inconsistency of this with his former determinations observed upon r— It was with other inconsistencies, as 1 conceive them to be, in his register- ing men, whose claims he had over and over again refused upon former occasions. 6641. Had those men before that tendered themselves more than once?— I can- not exactly say that the men taken off by the Committee of The House of Commons had ; but I am now referring to cases of persons who came up to register and never had succeeded in getting placed upon the register till within the last two or three sessions before he left the county. 6642. But the former questions had reference to those who had been taken off the