2/ J ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. rj 137 Do you consider from your examination that the Commissioners have admi- nistered" the affairs committed to their hands with economy and discretion?— I do not. State your reasons for that opinion?— The sum that has been received by the " Commissioners of Paving, from the year 1808 to 1821, including a sum of 40,000/. from Government, has been 588,460/. 13s. 2^., being an average of 48,345/. 2 s. 6d. per annum. Previously to the passing of the present act, was any allowances made to the citizens of Dublin by Government on thatsubject?— 10,000/. a- year was allowed. Was that allowance relinquished, and if it was, in consideration of what?— It was relinquished in consequence of Government paying off a debt of 53,000/. and giving 40,000 /. as an outfit to the present establishment. How is the Paving Board constituted; who are the Commissioners?— Major Taylor, Alderman Bloxham, and, I believe, the third Commissioner is a Mr. Edgeworth. Major Taylor has been Commissioner thirteen years. By whom are those Commissioners appointed ?— By Government. Is there any legal control exercised by any, and what, authority over the conduct of the Paving Board ?— None, except by Government. How have you ascertained the income of the Paving Board ?— By the accounts annually laid before Parliament. Have you derived any information on the subject from individuals connected either with the Paving Board or the Account Office ?— The Paving Board would dismiss any person who should give information. What reason have you for knowing that ?— I was told that a clerk was suspected of making a communication to me, and I gave him a certificate that I had had n » communication with him, or with any person whatsoever connected with the paving establishment. Have you ever heard of the dismissal of Sir Charles Coote ?— I have. Are you aware of the details of that transaction ?— I am not, further than I was informed. Are you aware that Sir Charles Coote was dismissed in consequence of a com- plaint that was made against him by some of the establishment?— By the keeper of the store, I heard. Then how can you say that there is any attempt on the part of the Paving Board Commissioners to close inquiry among their servants?— From the Clerk who applied to me on the subject: it is from him that I heard it. You do not wish the Committee to understand that it is a general system adapted by the Paving Board?— I do; that was from one of their own establishment. The charge brought against Sir Charles Coote was for embezzling stores out of their own establishment. He was an officer of the Board ; he knew it; lam not an officer of the Board; and if I was, I should be perhaps better able to explain the various methods than I am now enabled to collect, from comparing their accounts for thirteen years, and tracing out the different transactions. Did you get any information at the Account Office ?— I made application there, and was refused. I then applied by letter to the Lord Lieutenant, and I was referred to Secretary Goulburn. The answer I got from Secretary Goulburn was that it would be attended with inconvenience to examine the details of any account till the account was returned to Parliament. I feared that I should be trouble- I applied to a gentleman who was very active about the local taxes, a Mr. some. Stewart, and he told me that if I would put down a few particular questions on paper he would get me answers; he would write to the Commissioners. I did so, and I got a few answers. Is there any access of any description afforded to the citizens of Dublin, or any of the authorities, except Government itself, to the accounts of the Paving Board ? — I never heard of any. Do you conceive, that affording such access to either the parochial vestries,^ or the grand juries, or any other local authority, would be productive of benefit?— Most important benefit. For what reason do you think so?— The abuses that have been going on for years would be necessarily examined into. Do you not conceive, that the examination of the Commissioners of Accounts is sufficient?— No; they do not consider so themselves, because they are not aware . whether the charges are reasonable or just. Ho you know in what year the Paving Act passed ?— The 47th of Geo. III. c. 109. 549. " M m Have