A// 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 77 14676. The 10 /. freeholder has 110 right whatever under the Reform Act?— K M- KellV> I think not, except so far as the oath is mentioned in the schedule, which he is to take. 6 July 1838. 14677. But although the oath he takes is under the Reform Act the ri^ ht is under the 10 Geo. 4 ?— 1 should say so. 14678. And that 10 Geo. 4 requires him to be in the actual occupation ?— It does. 14679- The leaseholder's right, which is created for the first time by the Reform Act, requires him to be in the actual occupation ?— It does. 14680. Then there is no species of 10/. voter for a county in Ireland who is not required to be in the actual occupation of the land out of which he votes ? I think not. 14681. Mr. Curry.] But does the 10 Geo. 4, or the Reform Act, require that lie should be in the actual occupation to any particular extent in point of value ?— Not to any particular extent. 14682. Mr. Lefroy.] But do they not both require that he should have pre- mises, and be in the actual occupation of premises described as yielding him 10/. over and above his rent ?— They both require that he should be in possession of the premises out of which he seeks to register. 14683. And the description of the premises in point of value is, that they shall be of the clear yearly value of 10/. over and above the rent, and all outgoings? -— It is. 14684. Mr. Curry.] You stated all former Acts respecting the qualification of others, not altered by the Reform Act, were recognised and preserved by it ?— 1 should say so. 14685. Will you turn to the section which does so?— It is the 3d section of the Reform Act. 14686. Even admitting that by this 3d section of the Act the right of the 10/. freeholders was to exist, as it did before, under the 10 Geo. 4, still the 10 Geo. 4 does not require the freeholder to swear he is in the actual occupation of premises of any definite or distinct value ?— To no particular amount; by specific words, I mean. 14687. Are you not aware it is in consequence of the difference in the wording the affidavit in the 10 Geo. 4, and in the Reform Act; upon the difference be- tween those two forms of affidavit and that of the 35 Geo. 3, with respect to the 40 s. freeholders, that the decisions which have been come to by Mr. Gibson and other barristers have been founded ?— I was not aware before of the distinction which existed between the old Acts and the new; that never was brought out in argument, nor was it ever declared by the assistant barrister to be the principle upon which he made the decision. 14688. Mr. Lefroy.] And does there appear to arise out of that distinction any sufficient ground for the decision which he has made ?— I think clearly not for the decision which Mr. Gibson has made; he has gone to what I call an extreme length upon the point. 14689. Mr. Litton.] So that even if what Mr. Curry has examined you to had been brought before you, you would not acquiesce in the propriety of that decision ?— Certainly not; I say so, as justified by the cases I have reported. 14690. Mr. Curry.] Do I understand you as conveying to the Committee as your opinion that there is no essential difference between the affidavit in the 35 Geo. 3, and in the Reform Act, except as to the difference between 40 s. and 10 /. ?— There is this difference, that he is required by the Act of the 35 Geo. 3, to swear expressly to a particular amount by words ; by the later Act he is not required specifically to swear to that amount, although I think the mean- ing of his oath clearly is, that he must be in the actual occupation of premises of the value of 10 /. over and above the rent which affects the same. 14691. Is not receipt of rent from your sub- tenant evidence of occupation?— Receipt of rent from a sub- tenant, I should say, was evidence of possession. 14692. But you do not say of occupation ?*— No. 643, 3 c