SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. certificate, and may require the revising barrister to give a new certificate upon that T. Courtenay, Esq. testimony only; and that that new certificate will give the man a right to appear upon the register, and to vote for eight years, without any other evidence being 23 March 1838. offered in support?— Precisely ; that is the case exactly. 6886. And that the revising barrister does not consider it to be his duty to make any investigation whatever, either into the nature of the qualification upon which the claimant wishes to have the new certificate, nor even into the existence of the claimant, nor into any other point whereby the real value of his qualification would be ascertained ?— Precisely; that is the view he takes of it; he takes it from the person representing the claimant. 6887. Does he require any evidence beyond the mere declaration of the person representing the claimant, that he does represent the claimant?— He does not; he requires no evidence beyond handing in the old certificate. 6888. Does that person so handing in the certificate, give evidence upon oath that he is the representative of the claimant ?—' He does not. 6889. Does he produce any document ?— No document whatever, but the cer- tificate itself. 6890. Was he in any instance examined by the revising barrister how he became possessed of that certificate ?— No ; nor even whether he was aware of the exist- ence of the party or not. 6891. Was there any evidence given before the barrister, whether or no the sup- posed claimant was really the party in whose name the certificate was given?— None whatever. • 7 4" Martis, 270 die Martii, 1838. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Curry. Mr. French. Mr. Milnes Gaskell. Mr. 11022:. Hogg Mr. Lefroy. Mr. O'Connell. Lord Granville Somerset. LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSET, IN THE CHAIR. Thomas Courtenay, Esq., called in ; and further Examined. 6892. Mr. French.] IN answer to question 6630, you stated that certain voters were, by The Speakers warrant, struck off the register, and that Mr. French refused to replace them, stating that he had no power to do so; do you conceive, from the great attention you have paid to this subject, that that opinion was a correct one, that he had no power to do so ?— I should say that, upon the same title and interest, he had not; I should remark that witnesses were examined before the Committee of The House, as to the qualification of those men whose votes were declared to be bad. 6893. But you are aware that those persons were not before the Committee to defend their votes ?— They appeared by counsel, and they had the benefit of a cross- examination of the witnesses produced against the votes. 6894. They had the benefit of a cross- examination of the witnesses on the other side, but they had 110 direct testimony in their own favour?— They did not bring over any witnesses as to the value at that time. 6895. Mr. Lefroy.] Did not the Committee insist on evidence being read from the notes of what passed before the registering barrister, including all the testimony given on behalf of the voters?— 111 every case that was put up before the Com- mittee, a note of what occurred at the time of the registry was read by the person who took it. 6896. Mr. French.] Do not you consider the viva voce evidence of a witness of that importance, that the revising barrister can often decide from the mode in which the witness gives his answer, as to whether he is speaking the truth or not?— One would suppose so ; but I think a great deal of that depends upon the 643. d 3 ' way