ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 203 CAME AT A CERTAIN HOUR, ON A STIPULATED DAY?— I THINK IT WOULD, FROM ALL THE PRAC- TICAL OFFICERS OF THE GAOL. THEN, IN POINT OF FACT, THOUGH THEIR NOT ATTENDING TOGETHER MAY BE DEPARTING FROM THE STRICT LETTER OF THE ACT, YOU DO NOT CONCEIVE ANY PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE TO HAVE ARISEN FROM IT ?— I PRESUME NOT, AS THE MEDICAL OFFICERS DO NOT CONSIDER THE ATTEND- ANCE OF THE APOTHECARY OF THE DUBLIN PRISONS NECESSARY OR USEFUL. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PRACTICE OF ALLOWING OFFICERS OF A PRISON, FROM ANY VIEW OF EXPEDIENCY, TO DEPART FROM THE LETTER OF THE LAW, IS NOT IN ITSELF A GREATER INCON- VENIENCE AND MISCHIEF THAN THE POSSIBLE BENEFIT WHICH MAY BE DERIVED FROM SUCH A PRACTICE ?— I THINK SO, AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. WILL YOU INFORM THE COMMITTEE IF YOU CONSIDER YOUR OWN DEPARTURE FROM THE STRICT LETTER OF THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT HAS PRODUCED MORE INCONVENIENCE TO THE PUBLIC THAN THE CONVENIENCE WHICH YOU PROMISE TO YOURSELF FROM THAT DEPARTURE ?— I THINK THAT OUR HAVING THE APPROBATION OF THE GOVERNMENT MAKES IT AN EXCEPTION; I WOULD ADD THAT THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT IN MAKING AN ARRANGEMENT FOR ITS BETTER REGULATION, WHICH REQUIRED MANY ALTERATIONS, MIGHT CALL FOR A DEPARTURE FROM THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW, WHICH WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIABLE IN THE MINOR OFFICERS OF THAT DEPARTMENT. IS THE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THINK THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE A DISCRETION TO DISOBEY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT, WHICH DISCRETION OUGHT NOT TO BE ENTRUSTED TO AN INFERIOR OFFICER ?— CERTAINLY ; I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE DISCRETION TO DISOBEY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT, BUT CIRCUM- STANCES MIGHT ARISE, WHEN HE MIGHT DO IT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC, WITH THE CONSENT OF GOVERNMENT. IF, THEREFORE, THE HEAD OF A MEDICAL DEPARTMENT SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR AN APOTHECARY TO ATTEND AT DIFFERENT HOURS, WOULD IT NOT BE WELL THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE SO ALTERED AS TO GIVE HIM THAT POWER ?— I THINK SO ; BUT IN THIS CASE THE APOTHECARY DOES NOT ATTEND AT ANY HOURS; I AM VERY INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING ON SUCH A SUBJECT, MORE THAN A MERE OPINION, BUT I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO GIVE THIS ANSWER. YOU STATED THAT THE PRISONERS AND THE DEBTORS IN NEWGATE WERE NOT KEPT DISTINCT; ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEWGATE ?— I AM. WITH THE PRISON IN ITS PRESENT STATE, IS SUCH A DIVISION OR CLASSIFICATION PRACTI- CABLE ?— I THINK IT IS, BECAUSE THAT DEPARTMENT WHERE THERE ARE A FEW ROOMS, IS SPE- CIALLY LAID OUT FOR DEBTORS. DO YOU MEAN THAT THERE IS ONE SIDE FOR DEBTORS EXCLUSIVELY ?— ONE CORNER OF THE PRISON IS ALLOTTED FOR DEBTORS. ARE DEBTORS AT PRESENT REMOVED FROM NEWGATE ENTIRELY?— I THINK THEY ARE, BY A PROCLAMATION FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LAST ACT OF PAR- LIAMENT. THEN, NOW THE MIXTURE OF DEBTORS AND PRISONERS IS IMPOSSIBLE IN NEWGATE ?— CERTAINLY. ARE YOU AWARE HOW MANY YARDS THERE ARE IN NEWGATE ?— I AM, BUT MY RECOLLECTION WOULD NOT SERVE ME PRECISELY; \ a plan of the gaol of Newgate handed to the Witness] THERE ARE FIVE. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE YARDS ARE APPROPRIATED TO FEMALES ?— ONLY ONE. DO YOU KNOW THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT YARD ?— IT IS A SMALL YARD. IN POINT OF FACT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO EFFECT A COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRISONERS IN THE GAOL OF NEWGATE, UNLESS THERE BE A NEW NEWGATE, OR SUCH ALTERATIONS AS ARE QUITE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITS OF THE PRESENT PRISON ?— QUITE IMPRACTICABLE ; NOR IS THE PRESENT NEWGATE CAPABLE OF ADDITIONS, FOR WANT OF GROUND. HAVE YOU ANY HESITATION IN STATING YOUR OPINION TO BE, THAT A NEW NEWGATE IS NECESSARY IN DUBLIN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRISON DISCIPLINE?— I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT SO SINCE I POSSESSED MY PRESENT APPOINTMENT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE NEGLECT OF THE LATE SURGEON IN THE PRISONS OF DUBLIN, WAS MADE THE SUBJECT OF REPEATED REPORTS BY THE INSPECTOR TO THE GRAND JURY ?— I DO NOT RECOLLECT IT, IT WAS PROBABLY PREVIOUS TO MY APPOINTMENT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HE HAS DONE SO ?— I NEVER HEARD IT, BUT THINK IT PROBABLE HE DID SO. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE LATE SURGEON WAS MORE THAN ONCE FINED BY THE GRAND JURY FOR NEGLECT OF HIS DUTY ?— I AM NOT AWARE OF IT, IT IS POSSIBLE. HAVE YOU HEARD THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED BY THE GRAND JURY FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY, 549- AND Major James Palmer. ( 27 May.) I I • I 111 h I!