kio' ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUELIN7.3 Exshaw's, for stationery, were submitted to those grand juries for presentments?— They were, every term. How often did Alderman Hamilton serve in those twenty years?— Sixteen times. How often did Alderman Archer serve ?— Sixteen times. How often Alderman Cash ?— Fourteen times. Alderman Reed ?— Fourteen times. Alderman King?— Thirteen times. What do you mean by persons of the corporation ; do you mean the aldermen sheriffs peers, and common council and freemen ?— Aldermen, sheriffs peers, and common councilmen, not including freemen, who are not of the common council. Of what number, do you suppose, those three classes consist, in the city of Dublin?— About 150. Mr. Richard Purdy. ' ( 28 April.) Martis, 29° die Aprilis, 1823. Mr. Richard Purdy again called in; and Examined. IN what part of the city do you reside ?— At Lower Ormond quay. You are aware, that a petition has been presented from the Saint Mary's parishioners to the House of Commons, on the subject of Local Taxation?— I am. You were one of the petitioners in that case ?— I was. did. You attended the meeting at which it was proposed ?— I Was it prepared by the meeting at large, or by a committee appointed by the meeting ?— By a committee. Were you one of that committee ?— I was. You were one of the persons that actually prepared the petition for the approba- tion of the meeting ?— The petition was prepared by another member of the com- mittee. The petition states a good many grievances ?— It does. You took pains to inform yourself of the truth of all the statements in that petition?— I did, as far as I could devote time from my own business to it. You investigated the truth of them ?— As far as I had time to do so. Sufficient to satisfy your mind of their truth ?— I think they are true, to the best of my judgment. In your investigation, did you investigate what was praiseworthy in the establish- ment, as well as what might be considered the abuses ?— I did. In the course of your investigation, did you happen to meet with one single circumstance, in the whole system of grand jury presentments, that deserved praise or ou^ ht to be supported ?— I do not recollect any instance. As one of the persons appointed to prepare that petition, you look upon yourself as in some degree responsible for the truth of the facts alleged in it ?— I do. You have stated your opinion, that no effectual reform can be accomplished, unless the power of taxation be completely taken from the grand jury, and vested in the parishes ?— Or vested in another power. Did not you say, vested in the parishes ?— Yes; but I merely wished to be understood, that so long as the taxing power remains in the grand juries, constituted as they are at present, and without control on the part of the inhabitants, we do not expect relief. Are you aware by what authority the grand jury of the city of Dublin exercise their power of taxation?— I do not recollect the Acts of Parliament; but I have understood it is by Act of Parliament. Have you, in the course of your investigations, read that Act of Parliament ?— No, I rather think not. Then the Committee are to understand, that though engaged in looking for both sides of the question fairly and dispassionately, you have never read the Act of Parliament under which the grand jury exercised their power of taxation ?— I have read that of 1793. but not the Police Act- , Do you conceive that to be due diligence in a person appointed to investigate the subject?— I was not appointed to study the law, but to investigate the conduct of those grand juries, as far as it was in my power to do so. You have stated the whole system to be erroneous ; you have stated that you investigated the system ; do you then think, that not investigating the power under which their ri « ht of taxation was created, is consistent with that statement ?— I did 549- 3 n0t (• 29 April.)