Mr. Michael Cullen. v— ( 15 May,) It Ifill Mr. Michael Maley. 120 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Jovis, 15° die Mail, 1823. THOMAS SPRING RICE, ESQUIRE. IN THE CHAIR. Mr. Michael Cullen, called in; and Examined. r A part of the Evidence of Dr. Harty on tfie 13th of this month, was read to the Witness.'] HAVE you any observations to make upon that evidence; have you any explana- tion to give of the circumstances stated in it ?— I do not think it was compulsory on the part of the person who took the securities; on the contrary I heard very lately that it was a matter of choice with him to retain those securities or not, and that he did choose to retain them. Is the substance of the evidence correct?— Really I think it is heightened and incorrect in the statements of it. In what particulars do you think it heightened or overcharged ?— I think the sum he has mentioned is very much over stated, and it is incorrect as to illegal applot- ments made by the vestries. A doubt exists in the parishes as to the objects for which they may applot; and when doubtful objects have been introduced in the assessments they have been for charitable purposes, or such as were connected with the performance of the church- service, and those doubtful objects might per- haps be sustained under Acts of Parliament, or ancient usage, which would validate them. Were you deficient in any sum as a public officer when you had ceased to dis- charge your duties as churchwarden ?— At the end of the two years the account was stated by the vestry- clerk, and, as I understand, there was a balance of about 140 L and not 200/. as Dr. Harty stated; and the vestry- clerk was asked whether he would choose to take my security for 100/. of the money, which he did, and I understand the balance lay over in consequence of a resolution of the parish that the succeeding churchwardens should draw upon me for the balance, which they have not done ; and the impression upon my mind was that the parish considered themselves very considerably indebted to me for the exertions that I had made on several occasions, to get rid of the jobbing on the part of the grand jury, and therefore they did not intend to call upon me for the balance ; but it is a matter of choice with the church- wardens whether they choose to draw upon me or not. I^ tow did you appropriate the money which you received as churchwarden during the period you were in office?— They were sometimes applied by myself, and some- times by the person who had the care of it. The person alluded to, for instance, disposed of the greater part of it. Did you appropriate any part of it to your own private expenses ?— The balance must of course have been applied to my private purposes, but there were some small sums included in the account which I did not consider myself liable to pay. Have those securities since become due?— Yes; and part of one of them was discharged. Have they all become due ?— No; whatever remains due is a matter of arrange- ment between the person who has taken them, and myself; the parish have nothing to do with them. He was asked very lately whether he chose to retain them, or give them back, and look lo the parish, and he, I understand, chose to retain them ; the parish has never, to my knowledge, sustained any loss by the churchwardens, which have acted within my recollection, or residence in the parish in which I have • been a housekeeper near twenty years. Mr. Michael Maley called in; and Examined. WHERE do you reside?— In Sackville- street, Dublin. Have you had occasion to pay any attention to the subject of the local taxation of the city of Dublin ?— I have ; to the paving and lighting- tax. Have you any observations to make on the'subject of that tax ?— I have. Did you investigate the accounts furnished by the Paving Board to Parliament? — I have investigated the accounts as furnished by the Paving Board, and laid toetore Parliament by the Commissioners of Accounts ; but I have not been able to se^ forth ^ narr0wly as 1 ™ uld wish> as the Particular items charged are not Do