ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 123 BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SITUATION OF RICHMOND BRIDEWELL THAT CAN PRODUCE DIS- EASE ?— CERTAINLY NOT; BUT THERE IS MUCH DISEASE AMONG THE FEMALES PARTICULARLY, FROM THEIR PREVIOUS ILL HEALTH, THEIR LONG TERMS OF CONFINEMENT AND RELUCTANCE TO TAKE EXERCISE. WHAT ARE THE PRESENTMENTS MADE FOR THE SHERIFF'S PRISON ? THE PRESENTMENTS MADE FOR THE SHERIFF'S PRISON, INCLUDE ALL THE NECESSARY REPAIRS OF THE PRISON ; PAINT- ING, GLAZING, WHITEWASHING, CARPENTERING AND ALL SUCH ITEMS; THE TOTAL EXPENSE OF WHICH, IN THE YEAR 1822, AMOUNTED TO BETWEEN TWO AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS. IS THERE ANY PRESENTMENT FOR THE KEEPER?— THERE IS NOT. WHO IS THE PRESENT KEEPER ?— THE PRESENT KEEPER IS MR. WILLIAM WOOD. ON WHAT APPOINTMENT, AND HOW IS HE PAID ?— THE KEEPER IS ALWAYS APPOINTED BY THE SHERIFFS, AND THE SECURITIES ARE RENEWED EVERY YEAR; THE PAYMENT OF THE KEEPER HAS ALWAYS ARISEN FROM FEES WHICH ARE ALLOWED BY LAW ON THE DISCHARGE OF PRISONERS, AND FROM THE RENTS OF ROOMS, REGULATED BY THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WHAT IS THE STATE OF THAT PRISON, COMPARED WITH ITS FORMER STATE ?— NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN WORSE THAN ITS FORMER STATE ; AND WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL CON- DITION, AND THE STATE OF ITS MORALS, EVERY ABUSE THAT COULD EXIST IN A PRISON PREVAILED THERE, AND ABUSES THAT COULD SCARCELY BE CREDITED ; BUT SINCE MR. WOOD'S APPOINT- MENT EVERY ONE, I MAY SAY, OF THOSE ABUSES HAS BEEN CORRECTED, SO FAR AS THE ACTUAL NATURE OF HIS APPOINTMENT, AND OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, WOULD ALLOW. WERE ANY ATTEMPTS MADE TO REFORM IT?— EVERY EFFORT THAT THE INSPECTOR COULD MAKE, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER, HAD BEEN MADE TO REFORM IT, BUT HIS REITERATED REPRESENTATIONS AND REMONSTRANCES WERE MADE IN VAIN; UNTIL AT LENGTH THE LATE SHERIFFS WERE INDUCED TO DISMISS THE KEEPER, IN CONSEQUENCE OF EX- OFFICIO INFORMATIONS HAVING BEEN ORDERED BY THE LATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT MY INSTANCE, UNDER AFFIDAVITS FROM THE INSPECTOR AND MYSELF, AND ALSO OTHERS WHICH I PROCURED FROM PRISONERS, STATING THE PREVALENCE OF GROSS ABUSES. WAS IT THE DUTY OF THE INSPECTOR TO INTERFERE?— CERTAINLY, AS FAR AS THE LAW WOULD ALLOW HIM, BUT EVEN THE SHERIFFS THEMSELVES COULD, GENERALLY SPEAKING, DO LITTLE, FOR THEY HELD THEIR OFFICE FOR A YEAR ONLY; THEY KNEW LITTLE, PERHAPS, OF THE ABUSES OF THE PRISON TILL THEY WERE GOING OUT OF OFFICE, AND IF THEY WISHED TO MAKE A CHANGE, THEY MUST MAKE IT AT CONSIDERABLE RISK TO THEMSELVES, THE KEEPER BEING OBLIGED TO GIVE SECURITY TO THE AMOUNT OF 20,000/. FOR THE SAFE CUSTODY OF HIS PRISONERS. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY PECUNIARY COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PRESENT KEEPER FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE GAOL ?— I HAVE EVERY REASON TO KNOW THAT NONE WAS MADE BY HIM. HAVE YOU HEAID OF SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE IN FORMER INSTANCES ?— I HAVE. DO YOU BELIEVE IT TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ?— I DO. DID YOU EVER HEAR THE AMOUNT THAT WAS IMPOSED ?— I BELIEVE IT WAS AN ANNUAL PRESENT OF ABOUT 100 /. TO THE UNDER- SHERIFF; I BELIEVE THE FACT IS ON RECORD. CAN THE SHERIFF OF EACH YEAR CHANGE THE KEEPER?— UNDER THE EXISTING LAW HE CAN TURN OUT THE KEEPER AT ANY TIME; THE RISK IS TO THE SHERIFF, AND OF COURSE THE APPOINT- MENT IS AND SHOULD BE TO THE SHERIFF. IN THE RETURNS MADE TO PARLIAMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THE EMOLUMENTS OF THE KEEPER HAVE VARIED FROM SEVEN TO NINE HUNDRED POUNDS A YEAR OR MORE; HAVE THOSE EMOLU- MENTS DECLINED, AND FROM WHENCE ARE THEY DERIVED?— IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE EMOLU- MENTS HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLE FROM THE OPERATION OF THE INSOLVENT ACT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT A GREAT PORTION OF THE INCOME AROSE FROM THE ABUSES THAT WERE PRACTISED IN THE PRISON ; AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTH FROM AN ABOLITION OF THE FEES, THE UNCERTAINTY OF RENTS, AND THE CESSATION OF ABUSES, THE INCOME OF THE PRESENT KEEPER IS PERFECTLY INSIGNIFICANT, AND INADEQUATE TO HIS DECENT SUPPORT AND THAT OF A FAMILY. „ , , . . . . WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EMOLUMENTS OF THE PRESENT KEEPER, AND WHAT ARE HIS EX- PENSESIIIS EMOLUMENTS FOR THE FIRST HALF YEAR OF HIS OFFICE, IN JANUARY LAST, DID NOT EXCEED 104/.; I MEAN HIS NET PROFITS, FOR OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE PRISON HE HAS TO PAY HIS HATCHMEN, SERVANTS AND AGENTS, IN REMOVING THE PRISONERS TO THE INSOLVENT COURT A SOURCE OF CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE, FOR WHICH NO ALLOWANCE IS MADE HIM, THOUGH THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE SAME OBJECT MADE TO THE KEEPER OF THE DEBTOR'S PRISON IN LONDON. HAS HE A HOUSE FOR HIS FAMILY ?— NO, HE HAS BUT ONE BED- ROOM, AND A SITTING ROOM OR OFFICE, COMMON TO EVERY PERSON COMING INTO THE PRISON. DID HE GIVE ANY SECURITY FOR HIS OFFICE ?— TO THE AMOUNT OF 20,000/. 549- CAN Dr. William Harty. ( 14 May.) i II