12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE HFR WERE LATE IN GOING TO COURT, AND THE PRESENTMENTS WERE FIATED PRIOR TO THEIR APPEARING • Richard Purdy. THERE ; THEY SUBSEQUENTLY ATTEMPTED TO TRAVERSE, AND WERE DEFEATED UPON A POINT OF L v LAW; I believe THE LAW PRESCRIBES, THAT PERSONS MUST TRAVERSE WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME, < 29 AprH.) AND IT WAS STATED THAT THE PARISHES OF SAINT MARY AND SAINT THOMAS, WERE LATE UPON THAT OCCASION. THOSE PARISHES AND MANY OTHER PARISHES, ARE VERY ANXIOUS NOT ONLY TO INQUIRE INTO THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVIES, BUT TO RELIEVE THEMSELVES, IF POSSIBLE, FROM SOME PART OF THE TAXATION ?— THEY ARE MOST ANXIOUS. ARE THE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND, THAT YOU HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ON THAT SUBJECT?— WE HAVE. > YOU HAVE ATTENDED THOSE MEETINGS?— I HAVE ATTENDED SOME OF THEM. HAS IT EVER BEEN DISCUSSED AT ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS, WHETHER THEY WERE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED IN RELIEVING THEMSELVES FROM THESE UNJUST ASSESSMENTS BY TRAVERSE, THAN BY ASSEMBLING IN VESTRIES, AND COMING TO CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS, WHICH COULD LEAD TO NO EFFECT ?— I NEVER ATTENDED ANY OF THE VESTRIES THAT WERE CALLED FOR CONSIDERING THE PROPRIETY OF TRAVERSING. THE COMMITTEE ARE TO UNDERSTAND FROM YOU, THAT YOU WERE DELIBERATING ON THE MEANS OF RELIEVING YOURSELVES; IN DISCUSSING THAT SUBJECT, WHAT WERE THE MODES OF RELIEF THAT WERE OFFERED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VESTRIES?— THE QUESTION HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY DISCUSSED, AND IT WAS THE GENERAL OPINION, THAT TRAVERSING WOULD NOT GIVE EFFECTUAL RELIEF; FOR LARGE PORTIONS OF THE GRAND JURY ASSESSMENTS ARE LEVIED UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, AND CANNOT BE CORRECTED EXCEPT BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT, AND • CONSEQUENTLY THAT NO TRAVERSE ON THE PART OF THE PARISH COULD AFFORD EFFECTUAL, THOUGH IT MIGHT PARTIAL RELIEF. DID YOU EVER HEAR IT PROPOSED, THAT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THOSE WHO FELT THEM- SELVES AGGRIEVED SHOULD HAVE RECOURSE TO LAW PROCEEDINGS FOR REDRESS, AND ENDEAVOUR BY MEANS OF TRAVERSE, TO RELIEVE THEMSELVES FROM THAT UNJUST ASSESSMENT?— IT WAS PROPOSED IN THAT INSTANCE I HAVE MENTIONED, AND COUNSEL WAS INSTRUCTED TO TRAVERSE. WERE THE GENTLEMAN WHOM YOU HAVE STATED, TO BE SO INTERESTED 011 THIS SUBJECT, SO TIMID AS TO BE ALARMED AT ONE REPULSE, AND THAT REPULSE ARISING FROM A POINT OF FORM ?— IF WE DO NOT OBTAIN RELIEF FROM THIS COMMITTEE, WE MUST TRY IT ON ANOTHER OCCASION, ALTHOUGH AT THE RISK OF PAYING DOUBLE COSTS. WAS THE QUESTION DISCUSSED, OF THE OPTION BETWEEN A TRAVERSE AND AN APPLICATION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?— IT WAS, MORE THAN ONCE; AND WE WERE IN HOPES WE MIGHT OBTAIN RELIEF IN SOME DEGREE BY TRAVERSE; BUT THE MATERIAL PART MUST COME FROM PARLIAMENT. COUNSEL WAS EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAVERSING WHO WAS THE . COUNSEL?— MR. WALKER FOR ST. THOMAS'S AND ST. MARY'S PARISHES; MR. CULLEN ALSO ATTENDED. THOSE GENTLEMEN INFORMED YOU, THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR ACT RELATING TO THE - CITY OF DUBLIN ?— THERE ARE VARIOUS ACTS OF PARLIAMENTS. ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT THOSE ACTS, SO FAR AS REGARDS THE ASSESSING AND LEVYING OF MONEY DO NOT DIFFER IN A GREAT DEGREE FROM THE GENERAL ACT OF PARLIAMENT, REGULATING ASSESSMENTS THROUGH ALL IRELAND?— I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY DISTINCTION, EXCEPT THAT WHICH LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF CESS, IN THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN, TO TWO SHILLINGS PER ACRE, WHEREAS THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE PRESENTMENTS OF THE CITY GRAND JURY. THEN THE COMMITTEE ARE TO UNDERSTAND, THAT YOU EXPECTED MORE REDRESS FROM PARLIAMENT, THAN FROM ANY PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS OF JUSTICE?— YES. ON WHAT GROUND WAS IT THAT YOU AND THE OTHER GENTLEMEN WITH YOU, PREFERRED LOOKING TO PARLIAMENT, RATHER THAN HAVE RECOURSE TO THE REMEDY BY TRAVERSE ?— IN ADDITION TO THE REASONS ALREADY STATED, WE UNDERSTOOD, THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BRING IN A BILL TO EXTEND THE TAXING POWER OF THE GRAND JURY, TO THOSE PARTS OF THE CITY NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GRAND JURY ; AND WE WERE OF OPINION, THAT THE MEA- SURE WOULD NOT AFFORD EFFECTUAL RELIEF TO THE INHABITANTS. FROM WHOM HAD YOU THAT INFORMATION?— FROM MR. STEWART AND OTHERS, DEPUTED TO WAIT ON THE SUPPOSED FRAMER OF THE BILL, TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO READ IT, 011 THE PART OF ST. MARY'S PARISH. YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK, THAT THERE WAS A DENIAL OF INQUIRY, OR A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF TRAVERSE BY THE COURT OF KING'S- BENCH ?— BY 110 MEANS, NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM MY THOUGHTS. THE PARISHES HAVE NOT GIVEN UP THEIR INTENTION OF PROCEEDING IN THAT WAY ALSO ? — With REPECT TO THOSE ITEMS, THAT WE THINK WE CAN be relieved FROM, WE SHALL UP DOUBT, RESORT TO THOSE MEANS, IF NOT EFFECTUALLY RELIEVED by PARLIAMENT.