V 296 M I N U T E S O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T H E JohnF Fosbery, 13204. Mr. Lefroy.~] You would not consider it right for a man to have his Esq. title to be upon the renter re- investigated every year, except in case tne qualifi- cation ceased ?— Yesin case of the falling out of bis lease, or insolvency, or 8 June 1838. bankruptcy. „ , 13205. Mr. Curry.'] Would that be what you call an annual revision of the register?— Yes. 13206. Then you would confine the new list put up every year to those persons only who had ceased to have a qualification ?— Yes, I think so, and not a new registry, as in the former case ; that would tend to a great deal of agitation. ^ 13207. But you would not have placed up every year a list of all the voters in the county, but only the names of such voters as had ceased to be qualified?— I would have the alphabetical list of the clerk of the peace, as at present, of those who are upon the register, and I would then have an investigation into the claims of those persons whose qualifications had ceased, either in value or title. 13208. But must not that necessarily lead to a revision of the entire list of voters in the county every year?— No. 13209. Why not?— Because any person coming forward must give a certain number of days' notice with respect to any particular person whose qualification appears to have ceased ; giving notice of his intention to oppose the claim. 13210. Might not such an objection be made to every name in the list as pub- lished by the clerk of the peace ?— Possibly; but that might be very easily con- trolled by making the party pay the costs. I do not know in what other way you are to do it. 13211. In what way would you provide for the payment of the costs?— By a civil bill decree. 13212. Supposing the party making the objection were not in solvent circum- stances?— There is a difficulty in that, certainly, because in that case it is hardly fair. It would be the same thing whether you put it upon the person who opposes the claim, or the claimant himself. 13213. Mr. Lefroy.] I) o you not think it would meet that, by making the attorney employed answerable in default of the party, or making him answerable in the first instance ?— It would certainly tend to diminish the number j there would be very few voters, I think, objected to, if that were the case. 13214. At present there is no appeal against the admission of claimants. 13215. A man, therefore, once upon the register, if he bring up his certificate at any future period within the eight years, can be re- registered on the production of the certificate?— I do not think he can be re- registered without a new inquiry; I do not think the mere production of the certificate would entitle a man to be regis- tered without an inquiry into all the qualification. 13216. It is unquestionably liable to an objection?— Yes ; I think he should go into his case altogether anew. 13217. Would you call upon him to go into his case de novo ?— Yes; I would not register him upon his certificate ; I believe that to be the law. ^ 13218. Mr. Curry.] Is not the certificate prima facie evidence of his title?— Yes, unless cause is shown to the contrary; and I do not think the registering barrister would say it was a proper case without proof of the title. Many persons thought that applied only to the second section of the Reform Act, but I know it is the opinion of the bar, and I have put the question to several barristers, that there should be a bond fide inquiry respecting the right. I do not think there is a difference of opinion among the registering barristers as to the propriety of having an appeal upon admission as well as rejection; I was annoyed at having so responsible a duty as to say I would admit any one, without more competent persons to appeal to. 13219. That objection would hold still more strongly if the law were that there should be no appeal to a Committee of the House of Commons ?-— Certainly. 13220. If the law were that the registry should not be opened, you would con- sider it a most intolerable grievance that a party should get upon the register, and have his name upon it for eight years, without the possibility of examining as to his qualification ?— Yes; I certainly would not exclude the House of Commons; I always thought the House of Commons had an inherent right, and it was the law of Parliament as much as any other law. It is a very undefined law. but it seems to be within the breasts of its Members. 13221. Do you not think if a cross appeal were given it would be ri'dit to main- tain that jurisdiction still ?— Yes, that is my opinion, certainly.