CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 28 May 1861)

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of hearing a petition from ratepayers of the city of Dublin, complaining of new matter that had arisen before the Committee during the progress of the Bill. Certain new clauses had been inserted in the Bill, after the opposition had been withdrawn, when the preamble had been proved. Injustice had thus been done to the interests of the ratepayers. His object was not to defeat but amend the Bill.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he should oppose the Motion for a recommittal, the practical result of which would be to destroy the Bill for the Session. He hoped the House would not reverse the decision of a most able and painstaking Committee by assenting to the Motion.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, the Motion was in the nature of an application for a new trial, and if the hon. Baronet could show that there had been any miscarriage of justice or any fraud practised it would be right for the House to agree to it. But this was not what the hon. Baronet alleged. According to him the fault lay with the counsel for the petitioners themselves. His case was that the ratepayers were damnified by the insertion of certain clauses in the Bill after their counsel had retired. But that was the fault of the counsel for the ratepayers, not of the Committee. There would he no end of litigation if such a course were to be allowed. If, indeed, the Members of the Committee were to 181 express a wish to re-hear the case it would be a different matter; but he did not understand that to be the case.

§ ME. VANCE
said, there was no wish to destroy or delay the Bill, and the investigation asked for would only occupy a few hours. The fact was that the clauses now objected to had not been argued or considered. They were not in the original Bill; they took most persons by surprise; and in some respects they were most oppressive and unfair. No good reason could be shown why Trinity College should be exempted and not the Dublin University. Then the Admiralty clause bound them for ever to maintain the same depth of water as existed at present in the channel and harbour of Wicklow, and this would operate as a great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Massey) said that the ratepayers ought to have stated their objections by counsel before the Committee, but the fact was that large bodies of other ratepayers now petitioned to have the matter reheard.

§ MR. C. R. M. TALBOT
said, that as a Member of the Committee, he thought it most unreasonable to refer the Bill back to them. He contradicted the statement that the Committee did not consider the clauses complained of. It was true that those clauses were unopposed, but the Committee considered them, and thought on the whole that the Trinity College clause was a fair one, while they did not consider themselves warranted in altering the clause which was sent down by the Admiralty.

MR. WHITE SIDE
said, that Trinity College was exempted, as the students did not want the water, for they had always had as much as they chose to drink; but he could not understand how the river, which was first to be drank by the citizens, was afterwards to cleanse Wicklow Harbour.

§ MR. GEORGE
said, that if the Bill had been fully heard before the Committee, not only on the preamble but on the clauses, there would be no locus standi for those who sought to have the Bill reconsidered; but that was not the case.

§ MR. LEFROY
said, that the insertion of the clauses relating to the University could be no reason, for the recommittal of the Bill. It was so well known that these clauses were to be inserted that a petition was got up by certain parties in Dublin against them, and the University took over witnesses to support them, who, however, were never called upon. The Committee 182 had conducted the inquiry in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner, and no ground whatever had been shown for recommitting the Bill.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that as a Member of the Committee, he wished to reassure the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, who seemed to think that the ratepayers of the city would be put to great cost in consequence of some threatened damage to the harbour of Wicklow. He had paid particular attention to the effect which the abstraction of the water of the Vartry would have upon the harbour of Wicklow, and he had examined Mr. Hawksley on the point; and from all the descriptions of the harbour given to the Committee, and the photographic views laid before them, he was perfectly satisfied that the abstraction of the water would have no practical effect on the harbour. The harbour consisted of a channel and a large shallow lagoon extending several miles, and the manner in which the engineers proposed to deal with it seemed likely to be most serviceable. They proposed to construct floodgates at a certain point, which would retain the water at high tide, and flush the harbour so as to clean it out at low tide. He was satisfied that there was no risk of the ratepayers being called on for compensation by reason of any damage resulting from the abstraction of the water of the Vartry, and he hoped the House, therefore, would support the decision of the Committee.

MR. DAWSON
said, he sincerely hoped the Bill would never pass into law in its present shape, as no adequate advantage would be derived from the startling amount of taxation which it was proposed to place on the citizens of Dublin.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, it was useless to contend against the opinion of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.