2jf> MINUTES QV EVTDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Major James Palmer. ( V . . May.) Then in point of fact, if the citizens of Dublin chose to avail themselves of the opportunities of the present system, can you conceive the possibility of any abuse existing, either in the tenders for contracts, or the selection of the contractors ?— I think if any abuse exists, it cannot be in that way. Neither in the tenders, or in the choice of contracts ?— Certainly. In point of fact, under the system as it is at present regulated, do you conceive it is possible for any partiality to be shown?— I do think that the lowest contract is taken. Can there be any partiality ?— I think not. Do you conceive tha. t the present system of receiving contracts by the grand jury has the effect of inviting as fair and public competition, as any other system that can be devised ?— I think not; because I think any other body in unison at least with the committee of the grand jury, receiving proposals, would probably have the effect of bringing more offers. What improvements in the present system and mode of advertising, and receiving tenders, and selecting contracts, would you propose?— I would propose that the magistrates of the head police office, in unison with a mixed committee of the grand jury, should receive the tenders for contracts previous to the term, and I apprehend the effect of that would be, or might be, bringing in a greater number of proposals. Are not the tenders now received, all previous to the term ?— They are. Then the alteration you suggest, is in the person to receive the proposals, and not in the mode of sending in the proposals?— I do think a responsibility would attach to the magistrates of the police office and to the committee, that does not so much attach to the grand jury as a body; and more time would be procured for inquiry; the committees of county gaols frequently contract. Do you think that no responsibility attaches to the court of King's Bench, before whom these proposals must be made ?— I think it does attach responsibility, but I do not apprehend the court would interfere, unless they were asked to do so; unless fault was found, they would take for granted that the thing was right. Do they generally see all the proposals that are sent in to the grand jury?— I do not know, but I suppose they do. Have you ever heard of a change in the contractor for bread occurring, two or three years ago, in the Dublin grand juries ?— I think I have heard of a change. Do you recollect who was the former contractor?— Alderman Manders, I have heard. Have you heard that he was under bid by half a farthing in the quartern loaf, and lost the contract accordingly, to a perfect stranger?— I believe he lost the contract by being under bid. Have you heard that from that day to this, he has been uniformly under bid, and never got it again, though he has been an uniform bidder?— I have not heard it. John Crosbie Graves, Esq. called in ; and Examined. J. C. Graves, WHAT office do you hold in the city of Dublin?— I am the barrister magistrate Esq. of the head office of police. The watch tax of the city of Dublin comes under your cognizance?— It is entirely under the regulation of the head office of police. The expense of the police establishment itself, is defrayed by the state ?— It is defrayed by the state, except so far as there are certain other sources of revenue that go in reduction of the total expense. Those certain sources of revenue are applicable to the watch establishment, are they not?— Some of them are to the police, there are fees, penalties and forfeitures, under penal statutes, that go to the general funds of the police establishment, also hotel and other licences. The rents of offices, the taxes, the salaries and law expenses, and the expenses of the patroles and constables, are comprehended under the parliamentary grant?— They are in point of fact, but the limitation of the amount of parliamentary grant, to a certain number of thousand pounds, I believe twenty- nine thousand British, is over and above rents, repairs, and building of houses, watch- houses and police offices, so that there may be all those disbursements for rents, & c. exclusive of that sum, as is also the case in the London Act; hitherto, I believe, there has not been occasion to carry it to the extent of that sum. Upon the face of the account submitted from your office to parliament, through the commissioners of audit, the whole expense of stationery amounted to 1,600 A which