The Sun.
London, England, 1808-06-10 00:00:00

DUBLIN POLICE BILL

On the tnotion for going.into a Committee on the
Dublin Police Bill,

Mr. Alderman. BERESFQRD (of Dublin) recom-
mended to withdraw the Bill, and toappoint Com.
missioners to inquire into the abuses and defect's of
the present Police System of the City' of Dublin, in
preference to laying on a heavy burthen without' ap-
parent necessity or benefit.
Sir A. Wai.r.vso4y, atter.the length of time this
measure had been before the house,;.'iought it rigkt
to go into the Comniittee.._ ,
Sir J. NEWPORT had no obje&ion to go into the
Committee, if the Gentleman wished it ; but put it
to him whether it would he wise to proceed further
with the Bill in this Session.
Mr. GRATTAN bad no 01,4e61101) to go into the
Committee' if it was desired. He had no objeaion.
to a measure which would give a satisladofy police
to the citizens of Dublin, without 'the enormous in-
crease of patronage contained in the present
But to this Bill he had a decided, objedionfas not
giving a satisladery police, and involving a vast ex-
pence and vast patronage. -
' The House then went into, the Committee,-Mt:
.GLORY in the Chair. The several blanks were
filled up.
Mr. Po:,;soirrq wished to know whether the , old
Officers were to be pensioned off, and a new esta-a
blisliment to be formed of new people.
• Sir A. WELLESLEY stated, that such of the old
Officers as were competent to the adive duties of,
the new establishmqdt were to be seleded, the others
.to be superannuated.
Mick some explanations between Mr. PONSONEY,
Sir A: WELLESLEY, and Mr. CROKER, 'the pro-
• visions of the Bill in this respell were agreed'to.
On the Proposition for extending the jurisdiction
of the Magistrates- under the Bill to a circuit of eight
miles round the City of Dublin,
Sir J. NEWPORT recommended limitation to' four
miles. •

Sir A. WELLESLEY argued on the insufficiency of
a security to the .tent of four miles.

Mr. SHAW (Member for Dublin) thought four
miles a sufficient extent.
Mr. CHOKER stated, that Howth, where the
packet establiblitnent was now about to be fwed, was
-beyond- four miles front' DUblip, and 'flat it was par-
ficularly desirable to
.protect the communication be-
.twz,.On the, town and the packets. That cominuni-
cation bad of late been partiZularly the object of the
'attacks of robbers.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT having proposed to limit the
extent of the juriizli6tion to four milei by an amend-
ment, a division took place—

or the A inentlni,...qt . 17
For the original Propor.ition .

On the clause relative to the increase of the num-
ber of districts, a long discuision took place, in
which die merits of the succeeding clause re-
specting the number and description of the Magi-
strates to be appointed in each district were also
considered. •

Mr. PosisotisY charaAerised the measure as one,
the sole object of which «as patronage. So great a
Ort at Dublin was surroundetl by sea, thit no ex-
tension of the present number of diitriats appeared
to him to be ne4essary. It` was proposed to in-
crease the present number of distrias from four to
six,, and to appoint for each distria three Ma-
gistrates, vie. an Alderman, a Lawyer, and a She-.
riff's Peer... He objet4eds to the introduaion of so
itiany new Magistrates as a wanton expence, and
particularly with respea to the Lawyers which.
it 'vas proposed to appoint. He concluded by inov.:.
itig as an Amendment, ,to substitute for the words
didtricw," tlic words ," four districts."

T

Mi. Syr47, add Sir J. NEWPORT supported the
Arnendtnent.
.Sir A. WELLESLEY contended, that tl:e increase
of Magistrates was indispensable, to preserve the •
peace of the City of Dublin. At present there we a
in Dublin twenty-four Conservators of the Peau,
besides the Aldermen ,and County Magistrates, and
yet the Police of .that City was in a most shameful
state. As.to the introduaion of Barristers, he main'
tained that they were the. most eligible persons for
Magistrates. He had no reason Whatever to believe
that this measure was disapproved of by the City
of Dublin ; on the contrary; the inhabitants. wets
almost universally of. opinion that it was necessary
to provide some measure to secure the Police of the
City, and in general they thought that the measure
now proposed would answer that purpose. -
Mr. PONSONBY denied that the Police of Dtain
was in the state described by the Hon. Baronet.
Sir A. WELLESLEY said, it. was true that in the.
City of Dublin there were not many outrages cot'
milted, tint then the Committee must recolleet that
there was in Dublin a garrison of 7000 men, wl.'°
were distributed in 40 different stations, and'had
patroles out-all night ; but it was equally true that
in the Country in the immediate vicinity of Dublin,
it was very unsafe to be out after it was dark.
Mr. DENNIS BRowNE concurred in opinion wit"
the Hon. Baronet on this subje&. He appealed t°
Ire'
his couryneen, whether the late rebellion in
o
land had not proceeded from that focus of mischief,
the City of Dublin ? Its support of thin positioa,he
enumerated the various atrocities that bad been com-
mitted in Dublin at that period, among• which were
the murder of the Lord Chief Justice, &c. and
glanced these leas as a proof of the necessity of
more extensive and vigorous Police.
Mr: FULLER urged the apparent necespity al a
stronger Police.
Mr. BEREsFORD and Mr. C. Wyssa argued
against the Bill, contending that the present Pace
'Establishment was amply'sufficient to preserv;olle
peace of the City.'
Mr. GRATTAN, in replymaintained
to an Hon. Gentlest
rMr. Dennis Browne) that fewer
gea took place in Dublin than in any other cliPt r
of Europe. TwaeleCtions had.given him an oPP° ; ,
tunity of accurately ascertaining the, charatler
.0'
the inhabitants of that City, and be declared that°
found them the most orderly and well disposed pee
,the
ple. He commented on e absurdity of acleivi
the enormities committedduringthe disturbances!"
Ireland as a pretext for establishing an unnecessarYo
or
Police now that those disturbances bad ceased, Iv
re
especially when it was recollecled that had the p'
posed police existed at the time of those disturbance',
it could not !lava averted the evil, which
was not c
fined to the metropolis, but diffused through t
1151,'
whole Island. This was a measure which, in
opinion, was entirely carctilated to increase the
'
ence of the Court, he should therefore give !this L'e
cided opposition:
c 0
fined
Mr. CuoKER opposed the amendnient.
On a division, there appeared,'
Per the Amendment', 3z -Against it, 6s-111:2jdfitY.43.
Another debate then took place on the next cl3`)sc'
respeaing the number of Magistrates to be aPP°lnt.
ed in each diistriCL
Mr. Sit A w repeated an amendment, that, in:
stead of ciihteen , the number of Magistrates -shod,'
beauty twelve, in order thus to exclade the six V
risters.
Mr. J. C. BERE3Fpp oppiwd.t he original clause,
as creating unnecessary ,Ottices at a great expeure'
while it intritted on the Charter of the Corporati6lie
of Dublin. He said it would throw a great deal of
influence into the hands of the Ministers, by creat-
ing such a number of new Officers. The
proof that ceuld.be given of the degree of Winer;
which this Bill would give the Minister was, t
during the .short trip which the Right Hon.
et
had recently made to Dublin, he had cootrived of
convince the Court of Aldermen of the proPrieti
this measure, and the Ina was, that out of R 4 A.,
dermen, 18 were Candidates for Offices under
Bill, and many of them were now in London.
an
Sir A. WELLESLEY said that the Hon. Gentletr,w•
had not done him justice if he supposed that..
went over to Ireland for the precise' of inducing
persons to support this Bill ; be declared so
that wai not the case. The Citizens Of. Dublin we,t:
aware that the present system of'Police
rca~ very
feCtive, and they in general approved of the Preseloi
measure; but. that approbation certainly did.
proceed trom.any promises_ which lie had made,
strongcs_c
laved
he bad not made any. The Hon. Gentleman
said, that many of the Aldermen were Candidate' "in ,
Offices under this Bill, and that several of "in
were now in London. Flow' many of theta were',"
tively that he, Aldermim
Loudon he did not know, but he could wtte
had seen but one
of Debl.o_.
in London, who called ty pay 'him a visit
It was true that this Bill did' to a certain extent
taut
terfere with the Charter of the City of DuDlitto'
it was impossible to introduce any system °I s
that would not affea the Charter to a certain extet-
yesterdY..
From the Warmth with-which thislneasure wlO9
It
A..
posed, it might be imagined that it would reftlr
large increase of aeration Dublin necessary lit
large
ibis was not the case : the expence of the areasde'
was to be defrayed by the adoption of a better Mot.,
of colleaing the Revenue, and by other innr°l
• • rt
Mr. STEWART, COl. TALBuT, and Mr. TlE•••.'fir.
opposed the Clause; which Was supported by
Cuoxett.'and Sir W. ELFoRD.
The Committee then chvicled on the API'.
!Pent :--

. ,
Ayes „ . 27.
Noes 66
Mority ainst it ---39
The Committees then pr against it —39 C ohr
The Commiite then proceeded through the (gig
Clauses of the Bill, upon which none but ‘'ebr"''.
amendments were ()tiered i and the House eing.
resumed, theßeport wai ordered to be received 611'
day. Adjourned.
-