kio' ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUELIN. 73 Veneris, 2° die Mail, 1823. RICHARD WOGAN TALBOT, ESQUIRE, IN THE CHAIR. Mr. John McMullen, again called in ; and Examined. YOU have stated that there has been a gradual increase of committals toNew- gate at different periods, for the last eighteen or twenty years, do you know the number of committals within the last year ?— I have been informed that it was 2,135- Do, you know the number of committals in the year 1805 ?— In 1805, the num- ber of committals was 628. Have you any means of knowing what was the number of committals in the year 1780 ?— I have no document from which I can form an estimate. Can you form a belief upon the subject ?— I cannot. Can you state what the expense of the support of prisoners in the year 1780 was?— I believe it amounted to 407/. 13s. 5d. Do you think, that the increase in the number of committals from that year to the year 1822, is a fair criterion by which you ought to judge of the increase of the expense of supporting prisoners?— By no means; and I consider the distinction as one of great importance; if the construction and the arrangement of a gaol are re- gulated for the admission and the safe custody of 300 criminals, the difference which will arise when there are only 200 persons confined in it, will be necessarily limited to the mere value of the food consumed by 100 persons and the use of bedding; all the other charges would remain the same or very nearly so. Under the particular circumstances of the city of Dublin, do you conceive the increase of committals a fair criterion, by which to judge of the necessary increase of expense ?— I think the answer I have already given, is equally referrable to the gaols of the city of Dublin, as to any other gaol. In point of fact, has the same gaol been sufficient, or has it been necessary to build increased accommodation for prisoners ?— There has been another gaol built for the confinement of convicted criminals, in which I am informed that all criminals sentenced to terms of imprisonment beyond six months, are now confined. That is the Richmond bridewell?— The Richmond or the City bridewell. Has there not likewise been a place of confinement built in Smithfield for young criminals ?— There has. Then, in point of fact, there have been two extra prisons built for the accommo- dation of those prisoners within the time specified ?— Yes. Have they necessarily been built?— I should decidedly question the necessity of having increased the number to three ; I think the preferable way would have been to enlarge the second, if necessary, in order to prevent the expense of a third establishment. How many prisoners was Newgate originally calculated for?— I am informed 100. How many have there usually been in it for the last few years ?— I believe from 250 to 300. Could it contain a greater number without imminent danger to the criminals themselves ; is it not too crowded already ?— I think it is too crowded already. Have not the criminals in the city of Dublin amounted to from eight to 900 ?— I believe the prisoners, including debtors, amount to that number. How then was it possible to have gone on in the city of Dublin without additional prisons ?— I have admitted there has been a necessity for increase, but I think that the building of a third prison and forming a third establishment for the regulation and management of that prison, has been a measure in which the public economy has been by no means consulted. What is the number which the Richmond penitentiary is calculated for?— I believe 300 ; but it is certainly much better calculated, in my judgment, for the accommodation of 300, than the gaol of Newgate is for 200. Then both together, you think they are fairly calculated for 500 prisoners, one for 300, and the other lor 200?— I think so. •<, .; ; < Then, what are you to do with the remaining 300 prisoners that at present exist