/ / J ON TIIE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 37 " Supplied by whom?— By Alderman Exshaw. Who is Alderman Exshaw?— The city stationer. Are you aware whether this supply is furnished by contract, or whether any system of control is exercised over the prices of the articles furnished ?— I am aware that it is not furnished by contract, and that no control over the prices exists, except on the part of the grand juries. Alderman Exshaw is a constant attendant upon those grand juries?— He is. Do you know whether, in any one instance, there has been any deduction made by a grand jury from the bills for stationery sent in by Alderman Exshaw ?— I never heard of such a deduction, although I am aware of objections having been made by individual grand jurors against the prices charged, as being very exorbitant. Are there any other circumstances to which you can direct the attention of the Committee, which may contribute to this want of economy, which you attribute to the grand juries?— I have every reason to believe that the contracts are not in gene- ral judiciously managed, and that the competition to which they ought to open the way is not productive of that advantage which the public should derive from it. On what circumstances do you form your opinion?— I form this opinion from my acquaintance with the trading classes of society in Dublin, and my perfect knowledge that the presenting grand juries of Dublin possess in no degree whatever, the confidence of the inhabitants. Many even of the members of the corporation, express themselves decidedly hostile to the present system, as open to all kinds of secret and partial influence. The period during which the grand juries are assembled is also so limited, and the members of them are so uniformly persons who have other important pursuits to attend to, that the fulfilment of contracts, and the exe- cution of works, is necessarily subjected to the control of inferior officers ; from, whose decision, if it should be influenced by caprice or by any more improper motive, redress must always be obtained with great trouble and difficulty. Under such circumstances, I believe that persons in trade are not in general anxious to propose for contracts, and that the public in consequence lose the benefit which ought to accrue from that mode of obtaining the supplies for the prisons. Have you any doubt that, if there were fair officers appointed, in whom the public at large could feel confidence, and if the contracts and the contract system were fully open to the whole trade of Dublin, that a very considerable reduction of the expense would necessarily take place?— I am clearly of opinion, that under such an improved system, and the abolition of the monopoly which at present exists with respect to the nomination of grand jurors, that great advantages would be derived by the public in the disbursement of the money. Are you acquainted with many of the individuals whfo are at present contractors for the supply of the prisons of Dublin under the grand jury authority?— I am not personally acquainted with many of them. Do you know who they are ?— They are by no means in general persons of great respectability, or known as merchants or traders in the city of Dublin. Are they, generally speaking, connected or unconnected with the corporation ?— They are, as far as I can judge, almost uniformly relations, or dependents, or inti- mate friends of the persons who serve upon the grand juries. Are you aware, whether any charge in the way of rent or money payment of any kind is taken in the « aol of Newgate from criminal prisoners, in consideration of r . 1 1 r • • 1 removing them to any other part of the prison, than that intended for criminal pri- soners?— I have reason to believe, that such a practice did even recently exist, but I am informed that it has ceased. Can you give the Committee any information with respect to the charges con- nected with the sessions- house of the city of Dublin?— They form a very consider- able item in the grand jury presentments. Can you give any instance of very considerable charge, as connected with the administration of justice in the sessions- house?— It appears, that the common cryer received in the last year 188 I. in lieu of fees on prisoners discharged, exclusive of his regular salary of 48 I. per year; I am aware that this statement has been denied, but I am positive as to the fact. Have you any observations to make with reference to those payments of officers, by the fluctuating and uncertain amount of fees, as compared with a fixed payment ivi the shape of salary?— It is my decided conviction, and I am persuaded that it is universally the public opinion, that the payment by fees of officers permanently 549- K employed