12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE jj/ r Can you state how many persons the surgeon was in the habit of attending iu . Isaac Stewart. 1807 ?— No, I cannot exactly. ' J Do you know, whether the two most crowded prisons were not added to his ( 8 May.) charge between 1807, and the time of the increase of his salary?— No, I think not more than one; nor am I sure whether there was any addition, as I perceive there was a bridewell or a workhouse in James's street, and I am not very sure whether the physician appointed by government continues to attend the Smithfield penitentiary. Are you aware that the Smithfield penitentiary was given up to the city of Dub- lin in the year 1818, and maintained since that time by the city?— I am informed, it was not given up till the ist of January 1822. Who was the surgeon to the gaols in 1818 ?— Surgeon Leake. Are you aware that the Richmond bridewell has been established since 1807 ? — I am. Does not it appear a very natural reason to you, that if a surgeon has to attend five prisons instead of three, his salary should be increased ?— Very natural cer- tainly ; however, upon that point, I beg to state, that I examined the sick in those gaols particularly, with a view to satisfy myself, what occasion there was for such an extraordinary quantity of medicine, and so large a sum being expended in that department; I got a return in the three gaols of Newgate, the Smithfield peniten- tiary, and the Richmond bridewell, there were only thirty- four on the doctor's list on the day I attended, only one in Richmond bridewell, and none in Smithfield; I went into every one of their hospitals, and there was no person to say sick, save such as were ill with complaints which had been brought on by their own in- discretion. Who is the present surgeon of the prisons ?— I am informed Mr. Read. Have you ever heard of his giving any pecuniary remuneration to his predecessor resigning in his favour?— I have; it is a circumstance of great notoriety, it is talked of in a great many places, and not disputed or contradicted, that he has paid 5001. and agreed to give a moiety of any increase of salary to Mr. Leak to resign in his favour. This Mr. Read is son- in- law to Mr. Long the police magistrate, and it was reported that there is reasonable prospect of an increase on the appointment of any person connected with the corporation of the city; and that as Mr. Read was son- in- law to Mr. Long the police magistrate, there was reasonable prospect of an increase to his salary; Mr. Leak had one hundred guineas in the year 1807. You state that in the event of the surgeon's salary being increased, something was to happen; what was that?— In the event of the present surgeon getting an increase, the late surgeon was to receive a moiety of that increase in addition to the 500/. Do you know who the relations of Mr. Leak were upon the grand jury?— 1 believe he had none at all, Are there any relations of Mr. Read upon the grand jury ?— There is his father- in- law, Mr. Long, the police magistrate, and through him connected with several others. Is he a member of the corporation, and in the habit of attending grand juries?— Yes, he is ; I see his name frequently on the grand jury. Do you know whether the circumstance of Mr. Leak's selling the office was ever stated to the grand jury ?— I am not aware of it. From your experience in the medical attendance necessary for prisons, do you not think that one medical attendant, namely, either a surgeon or a physician, would be sufficient to attend the prisons of the city of Dublin ?— I do ; I have already mentioned the sum paid to three hospitals, namely, 6501.; they are very excellent institutions, and I am quite satisfied that if the grand jury made a point to discon- tinue that annual grant, unless they attended to the duties of the prisons and agreed to supply them with medicines, & c. that rather than be deprived of this annual grant, they would supply medicine and medical advice without any charge whatever. Can you give the Committee any information with regard to the expense of the town clerk's office of the city of Dublin?— I perceive in a return made by the town clerks themselves, they had in 1816 a salary of 724/. and fees to the amount of 1,017 ^ 5 9</-; the salary has been continued from 1816 up to 1821, and there is a remarkable occurrence with respect to that; 1 was on one of those juries, and it was said we had no discretion with respect to those fees, and on reference to the Act of Parliament, it appears that the grand jury may give a reasonable compensa- tion ; they are not to exceed a certain sum, but they may give reasonable compen- sation ;