Last Chance to Read
 
 
 
 
You are here:  Home    Two Reports from the Select Committee of the Local Taxation of the City of Dublin

Second Report from the Select Committee of the Local Taxation of the City of Dublin

09/07/1823

Printer / Publisher:  
Volume Number:     Issue Number: 
No Pages: 1
 
 
Price for this document  
Second Report from the Select Committee of the Local Taxation of the City of Dublin
Per page: £1.00
Whole document: £1.00
Purchase Options
Sorry this document is currently unavailable for purchase.

Second Report from the Select Committee of the Local Taxation of the City of Dublin

Date of Article: 09/07/1823
Printer / Publisher:  
Address: 
Volume Number:     Issue Number: 
No Pages: 1
Sourced from Dealer? No
Additional information:

Full (unformatted) newspaper text

The following text is a digital copy of this issue in its entirety, but it may not be readable and does not contain any formatting. To view the original copy of this newspaper you can carry out some searches for text within it (to view snapshot images of the original edition) and you can then purchase a page or the whole document using the 'Purchase Options' box above.

kio' ON THE LOCAL TAXATION OF THE CITY OF DUELIN. 73 Luna, 12° die Mali, 1823. THOMAS SPRING RICE, ESQUIRE, IN THE CHAIR. V. The Rev. Piers Robert Gamble, again called in ; and Examined. - DO you know how the Richmond bridewell was built?— I do; it was built by the order of government, under the government architect; government advanced the money to the grand jury, not in the literal sense advanced it, but when there was 5,0001, worth of the building done, they paid 5,000 I. on account, Had the grand jury any control over it?— They had nothing whatever to say to the building of k, I believe. It appears that for the building of it there were three aldermen appointed as com- missioners, that were in the building line, Aldermen Darley, Read and Thorpe; had they any interest whatever in being appointed commissioners to it, could they execute any part of the contract in consequence ?— I believe they had no interest whatever in it; I was not inspector at that time, but I do not think they could have had any interest in it, because the money was only paid 011 certified bills going in to government, and paid by order of government out of the treasury; the plans were adopted by government, and the architect was the government architect; this is my knowledge of the case. Who made the contracts; was it government or the grand jury?— The grand jury- had nothing to say to them, it was the commissioners I believe; what has given the idea of the grand jury having any thing to say to it is, that the commissioners were sometimes on the grand juries, but the grand jury had nothing to do with it but to pay a certain sum to reimburse government for the building of the bridewell. There has been a statement made to this Committee that in a contract taken by Mr. Mallett of Dublin for iron work for the gaol, Alderman Archer was reported to be a partner with him, who was a member of the grand jury at that time ; can you state whether he was or was not ?— I have Alderman Archer's direct authority to contradict it in every sense of the word, and I do not think it could have happened without my hearing of it before; and I never did hear of it, nor do I give the leas tcredit to it. Do you know whether Mr. Archer had any connection with Mallett ?— I do not believe he had any whatever. Do you know any thing of the connection between Alderman Darley and Mr. O'Brien, or whether there is any partnership between them ?— I believe there is none; I heard Alderman Darley say three years ago that he was giving up his business at that time in consequence of the increase in his official duty. It has been stated to this Committee, that a w idow of the name of Welsh, on the City quay, has been required to pay the grand jury cess, though she had a receipt from the collector; do you know whatthat transaction was ?— I do ; Widow Welsh has two houses on the City quay, for one of which she had paid cess for and produced a receipt, and she was not called upon to repay that, but she was called on to pay cess for the other house, for which she had not a receipt. Were both the demands made by the same man ?— No; one was made by a col- lector who was a defaulter, and the other was made by a subsequent collector, and she appealed to the grand jury relative to the cess that she had paid, and she was not required to pay that again, having produced the receipt; but she was called upon to pay the cess for the house for which she had not a receipt. It has been stated to the Committee,. that it was for the defaulting collector that she was re- assessed, can you say positively that she was not ?— Mrs. Welsh had two houses, for one of which she could not produce the tax receipts, and therefore she was required to pay for that house. You inspect Richmond bridewell?— I do. Who is the governor of Richmond bridewell ?— Thomas Purdon. What is his emolument?— His salary is 400/. a year, and he has a house, coals and candles, and vegetables. No other emolument?— None other. Who appoints to the situation ?— The Act of Parliament gives the appointment to the lord lieutenant, but in this case, the government gave it to the grand jury. What number of prisoners does the Richmond bridewell contain ?— I think the average is 300. Are they employed ?— They are. How are they employed ?— I have here a daily return which shows how they are all employed. [ The witness delivered in the same, which is as follows:] 549- 2 Rev. P. R. Gamble. May.)
Ask a Question

We would love to hear from you regarding any questions or suggestions you may have about the website.

To do so click the go button below to visit our contact page - thanks