HC Deb 21 June 1839 vol 48 cc701-2

The City of London Police Bill was read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do pass,

Mr. Fox Maule

said, that there were several clauses which he intended to propose should be added to the bill by way of rider, but he wished to move, that they be read a first and second time, and then be referred to the Committee to which the Metropolitan Police Bill was referred, in order that the Committee might report that they were proper clauses to be inserted.

Mr. T. Duncombe

objected to this course. The hon. Gentleman had proposed, after the bill had been read a third time, to bring up about thirty-four clauses, and to refer them to a committee. He should like to know whether this could be done according to the forms of the House. The clauses were of the most objectionable nature, and he should object to their being referred to a Select Committee, thinking that if the clauses were good they ought to be discussed by the House.

Lord John Russell

said, that it had been considered, that what was law without Temple-bar ought to be law within Temple-bar, and, therefore, his hon. Friend had proposed to introduce the same clauses which had been inserted in the Metropolitan Police Bill into the City Police Bill.

Sir Robert Peel

said, if they were to adopt the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), they would establish a dangerous precedent, and he thought, therefore, that it would be better to adhere to the rules of the House in regard to the insertion of clauses after the third reading of a bill. Would it not be better to withdraw this bill for the present, and discuss these clauses in committee of the whole House on the Metropolitan Police Bill? This measure could, after that discussion, be again brought forward.

Clauses to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on a subsequent day.

Back to