2( j June 1838. < jj/ S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O N F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 3 5 7 ' ' 14385. Mr. French.-] Is it not the duty of the assistant barrister to satisfy E M Kelly Esq himself by inspection that there are no clauses or covenants which would deprive ' ' the person c aiming of the right to register ?- I should say it was his duty. 14386. he assistant barrister in Ireland is generally a man of a certain standing; before he is appointed lie must have been a certain number of years at the' bar > — He must be of six years standing at the least. 14387. Are you aware how long Mr. Gibson has been at the bar?— I am not. 14388. He has been certainly more than six years ? — Certainly. 14389. Mr. Litton.] In point of practice is not the great use made of counsel at the registration to argue upon the construction of covenants, and the legal form of those instruments which are produced for the purpose of registration ?— I should say so, certainly. 14390. Is it possible for any individual to do that unless he has an inspection of the instrument ?— I should say not. 14391. Therefore you would say, that the absence of the inspection of the instrument, when called for by the counsel opposing the voter, would, in many cases, lead to the admission of fictitious votes ?— I have 110 doubt that it is cal- culated to facilitate, in many instances, the registry of fictitious voters. 14392. Have you any doubt that Mr. Gibson's conduct in this respect did not only facilitate, but did actually realize, many fictitious voters?— I cannot go the length of saying that it did realize, because 1 do not know any particular instance myself. 14393. Was not the man admitted in this instance ?— He was; and I think the necessary consequence of refusing the inspection of the instruments to the opposing counsel is to facilitate the registry of fictitious voters. 14394. Chairman.] Were there any cases of this sort brought before Mr. Gibson whilst you were present ?— He never allowed an inspection of any instrument to the opposing party. 14395. Were there any cases in which proposals were made to him of the inspection of leases while you were present?— When once he had ruled the point it was not raised again ; I believe it was objected to in some one or two instances afterwards, but there were many instances where I have reason to believe the objection would have been taken, but that it was considered hopeless, for he laid it down as a fixed rule. 14396. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Did that occur early in the registration?— The first case upon the registry, as I have it. 14397. Chairman.] Was there any case in which he objected to the pro- duction of a lease when that lease was in favour of a person coming up to claim upon the Conservative side?— The opposite party never, to my knowledge, applied for it, knowing it was a settled rule. 14398. Upon that occasion did Mr. Daly, or anybody 011 the part of the Liberals, make an objection to the production of the lease, or was it merely a discussion between the revising barrister 011 the one hand, and Mr. Battersby on the other? — It was altogether a discussion between the barrister and Mr. Battersby. - isrlT . 14399. The Liberal agent or barrister did not interfere?— They did not offer any argument upon that occasion. 14400. And so far as the Liberal side was concerned, the question never arose of their wishing to see the lease of a Conservative claimant, and being refused ? — They never applied, during my attendance at the registry court, for liberty to inspect the applicants' leases, f do not say that they would not have applied but for the settled rule which had been laid down by the barrister upon the subject. 14401. Mr. French.] The decision of the question was considered as final?— It was. 14402. Mr. Serjeant Jackson^ Then the fact is this, that the case that arose was on the part of a voter, on the Liberal interest, coming forward, and the counsel concerned for the Conservative interest opposed him, and required an inspection of the instrument, and the rule was pronounced in that case ?-~ jhe rule was pronounced generally in that case. His words were : " I never allow rid the opposing party to see the applicants' deeds. 14403. And upon that occasion the counsel in the Liberal interest took no part in the discussion ?— He took no part in the discussion. 643. z z 3 14404. Nor