108 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Dr parish of the city of Dublin with the whole county of Dublin. In the first place, we will William Harty. gje he presentments at Easter term 1822, when the levy on the county for the ad- — ' ministration of criminal law amounted to 2,314* 3 f d. whilst the actual ap- 03 May.) lotment on St. Marv's parish, which is referred to in their report, amounted to 0 ok< 51 8* 11 k cf. about 401, more than the county ; there were considerable arrears due by the parish at the same time, which of course should not be included in the es- timate- and in makin^ the comparison, it should be recollected that the whole of the applotment on St. Mary's parish embraced all the objects for which there were grand jury presentments; therefore there is no fair ground of comparison in that respect. In the next place, the county of Dublin has but one prison, and the officers necessary for one prison, which contains upon an average about 100 criminal prisoners, some of whom are state prisoners, supported by the government: while the city of Dublin has three criminal prisons, containing, generally, about 800 prisoners; consequently there can be no great wonder that the applotment on St. Mary's parish should be very large, even if it related entirely to criminal matters, as compared with the county; but it is further to be recollected, in instituting any comparison of the kind, that St. Mary's parish is the largest parish in the city, its extent and wealth considerable; and that its applotment is not only greater than that of any other parish, but exceeds the ap- plotment upon eight other parishes taken together : therefore I conceive there is no ground whatever of comparion as between the applotment on that parish, and the applotment on the county of Dublin, and consequently no just inference. What proportion does St. Mary's parish bear to all the parishes of Dublin?— It exceeds St. Peter's and St. Thomas's parish in its applotment, and St. George's in its extent; consequently I conceive there are no just premises from which to draw an inference; and that, as the facts stand, the inference would be quite the reverse of that which is drawn by the petition of St. Mary's parish. It is stated in the same petition, as a reason why the taxing powers of the Dublin grand jury should be abolished, and intrusted to parochial commissioners at vestries, that those powers are exercised by the grand jury, almost without control or responsibility ; and that it is the practice in Great Britain to intrust such powers to parochial commissioners, or vestries. How far do you conceive either or both of those assertions correct ?— I consider the first utterly groundless, because I think it has been shown already, and may easily be proved, that the taxing powers exercised by the grand jury are exercised under considerable control and responsibility, as they can present for no one object, unless sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and not only sanctioned by Act of Parlia- ment, but in a great majority of instances, the actual amount of presentment is not at their discretion; it is defined by law; and they are under strict responsibility to the court of King's Bench, and that court, I can assert, does exercise great control over them. With respect to the practice in Great Britain, I believe, so far as 1 have made inquiries, the case to be otherwise than is stated: certainly in the city of London a control and taxing power is exercised in the wards by the alder- man and the common council of each ward, so far constituting a species of corporate grand jury within the ward. The petition of St. Thomas's parish states the present enormous and unjust amount of local taxes, as well as the numberless instances in which they have been abused, to be entirely owing to their being subject to the management of the grand jury, or the corporation of the city of Dublin ; would it not therefore contribute to the benefit or relief of the citizens of Dublin if the constitution of its presenting grand juries was modified?— I should think that I have already stated facts suffi- cient to show that the amount of those taxes, enormous you may call them if you will, is owing to causes entirely independent of the constitution of the body which tbe ta*; and therefore having shown the efficient causes of the amount, it cannot possibly be owing to the constitution of the bodv levying the tax. Do not you think it would contribute to the satisfaction of the citizens of Dublin it the- shenffs were in the habit of alternately naming a member of the corporation, and a citizen, not a member of the corporation, to serve upon the grand juries ?— I am quite confident that it would contribute very much to dispel tbS ignorance and ; at ei° St ° n theLsubJect; that it would also give considerable satis- C l ' f ! f, her± ? ; butat the same time I do not feel the least hesitation