The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

DUBLIN CORPORATION WATER BILL.

On the motion for the consideration of this bill,
Sir E. GROGAN moved that the bill be re-committed,
for the purpose of hearing the petition of ratepayers and
others of Dublin, deposited in the Private Bill-office, and
complaining of matter which had arisen during the pro-
gress of the bill before the committee on the bill. He said
that there were objections to the bill which were considered
reasonable by those persons who were acquainted with the
subject, but there had not been sufficient time afforded to
enable him or those who agreed with him on thepropriety of
this motion to urge these objections at the previous stages
of the bill. By the provisions of the bill power was given
to the Corporation of Dublin to raise any amount of money
for the purpose of supplying the city of Dublin with water.
There were also other most objectionable clauses in the
bill, including exemption to Trinity College, and cer-
tain companies. He did not want to destroy the bill,
to which the committee to whom it had been referred had
devoted much time and attention. His only object was to
render the clauses less onerous and oppressive on the rate-
payers.
Mr. MAGUIRE, whose name was on the bill, said that
the object of the hon. member was to destroyi it, notwith-
standing that he disclaimed any such intention. The bill
would be of great benefit to the inhabitants of Dublin, and
so far from large houses in that city being well supplied
with water the reverse was the fact, as he was informed by
the most creditable authorities. There was scarcely
a week elapsed that there was not a fire in the
city of Dublin, and yet there was not sufficient water supply
provided to meet such accidents. He contended that this
matter might be fairly left in the hands of the corporation,
who were really the representatives of the people. That
body were willing to tax themselves for the benefit of the
poor, and experience had shown that no greater boon
could be given to the humble classes than affording
them an adequate supply of water, which, amongst
other advantages, tended to arrest the progress of disease.
He contended also that every opportunity was given to the
opponents of the bill to dispute it in committee.
Mr. MASSEY said that the ratepayers were represented
by counsel before the committee, and if they chose to retire
prematurely, that was no reason why the committee should
be called on to sit on the bill. If any hon. member of the
committee said that he thought it desirable to
have the bill reconsidered, that certainly might
be a reason for adopting the course advocated by the hon.
baronet (Sir E. Grogan), but in the absence of any such
expression, he felt bound to oppose the amendment for the
recommittal of this bill.
Mr. VANCE said that some of the clauses in this bill
took his hon. colleague and himself by surprise, and were not
in the original bill. He strongly objected to the exemption
of Trinity College from being taxed, and also the Admi-
ralty clause in the bill, which made it imperative to main-
tain a certain depth of water in Wicklow harbour.
Mr. TALBOT said that the committee sat for three
weeks, and were uuanimous in their decision. He thought
therefore that there was no ground for calling on them to
sit again, and he called on the house to maintain its privi-
leges by rejecting the amendment of the hon. baronet (Sir
E. Grogan).
After some observations by Mr. Whiteside, Mr. George,
and Mr. Lefroy,
Mr. WALTER, as a member of the committee, said
that, as regarded the Admiralty clause, there was no ground
for apprehension.
Sir E. GROGAN consented to withdraw the amend-
ment, and the bill was considered and ordered for third
reading.