ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 21 Mercurii, 30 die Aprilis, 1823. Mr. Richard Purdy, AGAIN CALLED IN; AND EXAMINED. IN A FORMER PERIOD OF YOUR EXAMINATION, YOU STATED AN INSTANCE OF IMPROPER CONDUCT OF A COLLECTOR OF THE GRAND JURY CESS, IN THE CASE OF A PERSON OF THE NAME Richard Purdy. OF WELSH ?— I DID. ^ ^ ' WHERE DOES THAT WELSH RESIDE; IS THE PERSON YOU ALLUDE TO, A MAN OR A WOMAN ?— ( 3° APRIL-) A WOMAN; SHE RESIDES ON THE CITY QUAY. OF WHAT TRADE IS SHE?— SHE DEALS IN CORDAGE. IS SHE THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE ?— SHE STATES HERSELF TO BE SO. IS HER NAME OVER THE DOOR ?— IT IS. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD PAID TO THE COLLECTOR 3 /. ?— SHE DID. DID SHE SAY SHE HAD HAD A RECEIPT FOR IT ?— SHE DID. DID YOU ASK TO SEE THAT RECEIPT?— I DID. DID YOU SEE IT ?— I DID. WAS IT A REGULAR RECEIPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE GRAND JURY CESS?— IT WAS A VERY INCORRECT RECEIPT; IT WOULD READ FOR EITHER SHILLINGS OR POUNDS. WHATEVER IT WAS, WAS IT A REGULAR RECEIPT, SUCH AS IS GIVEN FOR GRAND JURY TAXES?— IT WAS ON PRINTED PAPER. ON A STAMP?— I DO NOT KNOW. HAVING INVESTIGATED THE LOCAL TAXATION OF DUBLIN, ARE YOU AWARE WHAT IS THE PRO- TECTION AGAINST ANY PERSON BEING CALLED UPON A SECOND TIME FOR HIS TAXES ?— I AM NOT; WHEN THIS WOMAN CALLED UPON ME I REFUSED TO INTERFERE FOR HER TILL SHE WENT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE AND MADE AN AFFIDAVIT TO THE FACT. DID SHE EVER BRING THAT RECEIPT, OR SHOW IT AT THE PROPER OFFICE, TO PROVE HER PAY- MENT OF THE TAXES ?— I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SHE DID OR NOT, BUT I SENT IT TO THE TREASURER OF THE GRAND JURY, STATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND REFERRING HIM TO THE AFFI- DAVIT, AND REQUESTING HIM TO GIVE THE WOMAN RELIEF. WAS SHE RELIEVED ?— SHE WAS NOT. HAS SHE PAID THE TAXES A SECOND TIME ?— SHE HAS NOT. THEN SHE HAS NOT YET SUSTAINED ANY LOSS?— SHE HAS NOT, BUT SHE HAS BEEN THREATENED BY THE COLLECTOR TO HAVE HER GOODS SEIZED. IN POINT OF FACT, HE HAS NOT DONE THAT?— HE HAD NOT DONE IT WHEN I LEFT DUBLIN ; I STATED TO THE COLLECTOR THAT I HAD FORWARDED A MEMORIAL TO THE GRAND JURY, AND REQUESTED THAT, UNTIL THE MEMORIAL WAS ANSWERED, HE WOULD NOT DISTRESS HER. ARE YOU SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED, ON THE TAXATION OF DUBLIN, TO KNOW THAT IF ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN, THAT THAT STAMP RECEIPT WAS A FULL BAR TO ANY PROCEEDINGS?— I THINK IT WOULD; I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD AGAINST A TREASURER, BUT IT WOULD AGAINST A COLLECTOR. IS NOT THE COLLECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GRAND JURY ?— HE IS. DOES NOT HE GIVE SECURITY ?— HE DOES. DOES NOT HE RECEIVE A WARRANT FROM THE GRAND JURY ?— HE DOES. ARE NOT THE GRAND JURY ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY ACT DONE BY THE COLLECTOR ?— I DO NOT KNOW. YOU STATED THAT YOU ATTENDED AT THE RICHMOND PENITENTIARY, IN COMPANY WITH A RUSSIAN GENTLEMAN AND SOME OTHERS?— I DID. WHO WERE THE PERSONS THAT ATTENDED WITH YOU?— MR. KERTLAND, OF LOWER ORMOND- QUAY, ONE OF THE COMMITTEE OF SAINT MARY'S, AND MR. SAUL OF HIGH- STREET. YOU WENT THERE AS A DEPUTATION AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMITTEE?— WE DID. YOU AND MR. KERTLAND WERE THE PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO INVES- TIGATE?— WE WERE, AND ONE OF THE CHURCHWARDENS WAS ALSO APPOINTED. HE WAS NOT WITH YOU ?— HE WAS NOT. CAN YOU RECOLLECT WHEN YOU PAID YOUR VISIT?— I CANNOT; I HAVE HANDED IN A REPORT ON THE SUBJECT. WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER?— IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER, AS WELL AS I CAN RECOLLECT. THERE WAS NO OTHER REPORT MADE ON THAT SUBJECT BY ANY PERSON BUT YOU AND THE GENTLEMEN THAT WENT WITH YOU ?— THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN TO WHOM I HAVE ALREADY ALLUDED, MR. H. UFFINGTON, WHO WAS APPOINTED TO GO TO NEWGATE, AND HE WENT ALSO TO RICHMOND BRIDEWELL. WAS IT PREVIOUS TO THAT?— I THINK THAT WAS IN OCTOBER. WAS THAT PREVIOUS OR SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR VISIT?-— IT WAS SUBSEQUENT. 549- G You