Lords Sitting of 26 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Turnpike Acts; Continuance.
Petitions presented. By the Bishops of HEREFORD, ROCHESTER, and other Noble LORDS, from various places, against the abolition of Church-rates; and by Lords SEGRAVE, BROUGHAM, and the Earl of RADNOR, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from various places, against any alteration of the Poor-law.—By Lord LIFFORD, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.

DUBLIN POLICE.
On the motion of Viscount Duncan, the House resolved

1089
itself into a Committee on the Dublin Police Bill.
On clause 2, empowering the Lord-lieutenant and Council to add any parish or place in the county of Dublin, situate within eight miles of the castle of Dublin, to the Metropolitan Police District,
Lord Fitzgeraldobjected to the clause, the object of which was understood to be to include the town of Kingston in the Bill, as being much too vague and undefined. It would confer power on the Lord-lieutenant, not only over the greater part of the County of Dublin, but also within the bounds of the adjoining counties. He moved that the clause be omitted.
Viscount Duncannonwas understood to say, that though he was himself unacquainted with the county of Dublin, he had received information which led him to conclude that it would be highly expedient to extend the operation of the Bill, as was proposed in the clause under their Lordships' consideration.
The Committee divided on the clause:—Contents 17; Not Contents 28: Majority 11.
Clause rejected.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved, that the House do resume.
Viscount Ellenboroughtrusted, that the Bill would not be withdrawn merely on account of the rejection of the second clause, as it contained many good provisions, and he should much wish to see it passed into a law with some modifications.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that those on whom rested the duty and responsibility of carrying the Bill into effect must take time to consider whether it could be satisfactorily carried into execution, after the rejection of a clause so material.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, that the responsibility of throwing the Bill overboard of course rested with the noble Lord opposite, and he hoped the public would understand that it was to His Majesty's Government they were indebted for the loss of the salutary provisions of the Bill, as well as for not having Kingston incorporated in it. It was not to those who voted against the clause that the abandonment of the Bill was owing, as that vote was meant to imply no hostility to the measure itself, and was accompanied with a disposition to give effect to what were supposed to be the intentions of Government, which had been frustrated by the course Ministers had thought fit to follow. He must take the liberty of adding that this was not the best mode of
1090
carrying on the Government, or of conciliating to the Administration that support which he believed those with whom he acted would willingly have tendered to them on the present measure. He deemed the Bill calculated to be useful, and regretted that the noble Lord who moved the Committee should have pursued this course.
The House resumed.