. ,46 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. D. Meagher, that ought not to contribute towards the municipal rates ?- No; it had no 1 reference to the tenement, but to the circumstances of the party applying 3 March 1838. 46>] In your opinion, then, they were in such poor circumstances that they ought not to contribute to the municipal taxation ?— At that period. ' 4672. That was in the August of last year?— It was. 4673 Do you mean to say that those houses have deteriorated since the period of their valuation ?— I cannot say that; I never saw the houses at all; we merely examined the parties. ... r , 46- 4 What was the course of your examination into the circumstances ot those parties?— Wc asked them why " they did not pay the rates; they urged their exemption, from a change of circumstances in business ; several of them had law proceedings against them, and they were very much distressed; others were widows; and we certainly were more lenient, as will be perceived by the list, to widows than to any one else. Many of them were in trade, and they convinced us that they were suffering under law proceedings, and in other ways, and we thought it would be a great pity to add to their misery by making them pay taxes. The ° f ore man of the grand jury, Mr. Lane, deputed myself, and Mr. George Newenham, and Mr. Hatton, and we sat in a separate apartment, and examined into all the applicants as they came. We made a report to the foreman of the grand jury of those we wished to have exempted ; and any that any of the gentle- men of the grand jury objected to, the parties were ordered in before the grand jury. 4675. Then it was the wish, on the part both of yourself and the other gentle- men who were associated with you for this business, as also of the grand jury, not to relieve parties unless where there was absolute necessity ?— Those were our instructions. 4676. And you executed those instructions with great carefulness, so as not to let off a party unless real necessity imposed the duty on you ?— And comparing with others that we saw exempted ; we saw others in similar circumstances exempt; then we said, if A. B. is exempt, why should not C. D. be exempt under the same circumstances ? 4677. Even if A. B. was improperly exempted, you would exempt C. D. in the same manner ?— Certainly not; but we took that often as a guide. 4678. But upon the whole there was no disposition to exempt persons without sufficient cause?— Certainly not; they were exempted by poverty and comparison. 4679. But the comparison never superseding the positive circumstances of the case ?— No, it did not. 468 0. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Do you apprehend that persons who are in such poor circumstances as to be absolved from the payment of rates, are fit persons to have the elective franchise continued in them?— Take the last 20 years, the grand jury have been allowing persons to be freed from taxes that ought not," and I repeatedly complained of it; and I complained of it as a gross partiality on the part of the constables returning such people as exempt from rates. 4681. Do you apprehend that persons who are absolved from the payment of rates, upon the ground of being so very poor, are persons in whom the elective iranchise ought to be continued ?— If a man pays 20I. a year, and he is exempt from his taxes, as very poor, I think it ought not" to interfere with his franchise. 4682. Is that the only case in which you would continue the franchise, or do you mean that as an answer to the general question ?— Cork is differently situated from almost any city in Ireland ; it" is governed by a local Act, and under that Act 1 found the most unfair allowances made to householders, by a system of favouritism, and I repeatedly called it to the attention of the grand jury". I ad- dressed them in the public papers, and I waited on them, calling upon them to put a stop to that system. 4683. The question is repeated. Speaking of persons as a class who are so poor as to be exempted from the payment of taxes, do you conceive that that c ass ot persons is an eligible class to continue in possession of the elective fran- cn. se — If they were of the description now referred to, I think they would not be ; but I do not think they are of that class. 4684. You were understood to say that none were exempt from the payment of luCl7 r ° ther gentlemen asso^ ted with you, except those who you con- X d;, T circumstances, ought to be exempt ?- Yes ; I think there were mv nricS. hrWere efempte, ? comparison with others. If they said, for instance, my neighbour next door has just as good a house as I have, he pays as much reni as