278 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE, & c. N° 6.— Account of Prices paid for Day Labour— continued. DENOMINATION. 1818. 1819, 1820. 1821. 1822: Persons employed at the Factory- Sawyers - - - - Harness- maker Labourers - - - <| Hired carts, with pair of horses"! each, for scavenging - - J Pair of horses to draw Board cart Hired carts, with pair of horses"! each, for paving - j Hired cart drawn by one horse - Given Dublin, 19th May 1823. • continued. 4/ 4 p' diem - 3/ 9| „ - - 1/ 8 „ - - 1/ 6 „ - - 9/ » - - 8/ „ - - 8/ 8 „ - - 5/ 5 „ - - under our C'orpor; same as last year same as last year 1/ 1 of p' diem 1/ 8 „ - - 1/ 6 „ - - same as lastyear same as last year same as last year same as lastyear ition Seal, W. Little, same as 1818 same as 1818 1/ 6 p' diem - same as 1818 same as 1818 same as 1818 same as 1818 /. Reilly Clerk in Departm Secy. f 4/ 4 to 3d Aug."! \ afterwards 3/ 4J same as 1818 same as last year ' 9/ to 20 April, afterwards 7/ ' 8/ to 20 April, afterwards 6/ f8/ 8 to 20 April, t afterwards 7/ f 5/ 5 to 20 April, afterwards 4/ 6 ent of Supervisors 3/ 4 p' diem. same as 1818. 1/ 6 p'diem. 1/ » 7/ to 15 June, afterwards 7/ 7. 6/ to 15 June, afterwards 6/ 6. 7/ to 15 June, afterwards 7/ 7. j- 4/ 6 p' diem, of Works. Appendix, N° 6. REPLY to Charges preferred by Mr. Peter Finnerty, Storekeeper and Super- intendent of Artificers to the Paving Board, against Sir Eyre Coote, one of the Commissioners. Sir, Dublin, February 2d, 1822. IN pursuance of Mr. Grant's letters, bearing date respectively the 28th November and 10th December 1821, inclosing charges preferred by Mr. Peter Finnerty, storekeeper and superintendent of artificers to the Paving Board, against Sir Charles Coote, baronet, one of the commissioners, and requesting that we should take each of those distinct charges into consideration as soon as convenient, and make strict investigation into all the circumstances connected with them, and report our opinion thereupon, for the information of his Excel- lency the Lord Lieutenant; we commenced the inquiry on the 22d day of December, and having, in the presence of Mr. Finnerty and Sir Charles Coote, and their counsel, examined all the witnesses produced by the parties, and perused various written documents, which were laid before us relating to the charges, we beg to submit to you, for the information of his Excellency, the following Report, as the result of our investigation. It appears, that from the establishment of the board of commissioners for paving and lighting, & c. under the 47th Geo. 3. cap. 109. Sir Charles Coote was supervisor of works in the northern district of the city, until the 29th of December 1820, a situation of great importance and trust, and which gave him a control and superintendence over the inferior officers and workmen employed by the board; on the above day he was promoted to the situation of commissioner, and at the same time undertook also to discharge the duties of his former situation, without any salary, a union of offices which we beg leave to suggest may not in any event of this inquiry, be advantageous to the public to continue, ( though attended with some diminution of expense), as the necessary tendency of it is, to defeat whatever benefit may be supposed to result from the establishment of a distinct check. Mr. Finnerty has been about six years in the establishment, during which time he has held different offices under the board, which it is unnecessary to advert to, farther than to state, that he acted for about a year as deputy supervisor to Sir Charles Coote, and on the 13th March 1810, he was appointed to the office of storekeeper at Mespil factory, and superintendent of the artificers, which situation he still holds, though from the commence- ment of these proceedings another person has been appointed to discharge the duties of it. The Act of Parliament referred to by the charges preferred in the 47th Geo. 3. cap. 109. by the 18th section of which, a distinction appears to be made between the commissioners and their officers and servants, as to the acts by which they would incur the penalties pro- vided by it, but the object or precise extent of this distinction it is not material to dwell on in the present C£ tS6j 3. S the most material charges preferred against Sir Charles Coote, as far as they have been proved, apply substantially at least, if not as fully, to his conduct as commissioner as well as supervisor. How far, in either situation he may have brought himself within the operation of that section, we shall hereafter consider; but on this investigation, from the nature of the charges, as well as the directions contained in Mr. Grant's letters, we conceived it to be our