INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY AT RYE. (Hansard, 27 May 1830)

§ Colonel Evans
presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of Rye, complaining of the Interference of a military armed force, under the direction of Herbert Curteis, Esq., on the occasion of a recent disturbance at that place between certain landowners and other persons, relative to the sluices which served to clear the harbour. The hon. Member entered into a detail of the disturbance which took place there on the 26th ultimo., he justified the conduct of the people and considered the interference of the military as illegal.

§ Mr. Burrell
maintained, that Mr. Curteis acted with great discretion and firmness. If the rioters had been allowed to proceed with the work of destruction, a great deal of valuable land would have been ruined.

The Solicitor General
stated the proceedings that took place in the Court of Chancery upon an application about the sluice. There was ultimately a decree of the Court, to the effect that the sluice was a nuisance. It was, however, unjustifiable in the people of Rye to take the law into their own hands. Their going by night to destroy the sluice was, in his opinion, an aggravation of their improper conduct.

§ Mr. Hume
found fault with the hurried manner in which the late bill for Rye and other private bills were passed through the House. He could not approve of the conduct of those who proceeded riotously to break down the sluice; but it ought to be considered that they had provocation, seeing that the Court of Chancery did not enforce its own decree, and that the Commissioners disregarded it. That was the state in which the petitioners were. He hoped that the Admiralty, as the general conservator of ports and harbours, would take notice of the case, and would not let the bill pass through Parliament, but would see that the decree of the Court of Chancery was carried into effect.

§ Sir Edward Knatchbull
said, that the landholders near Rye had no bad feeling towards that town. There was no opposition made to the bill as it was passing 1143 through the committee, and it was known to all parties that application was to be made to Parliament. The hon. Baronet defended the conduct of Mr. Curteis, who acted with promptitude and discretion on the occasion of the riotous proceeding.

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, that he would not give any opinion on the question between the people of the town of Rye and the Commissioners. He absented himself from voting on the bill, upon the principle that it was better for a Minister of the Crown not to interfere in giving an opinion on a private bill. The time for making repairs in the sluice would not, by law, expire till 1831, and yet, at ten o'clock at night, about 500 persons, preceded by a band of music, went to level it by force, and so destroyed the communication between Rye and Dover. He felt it his duty to say, that the magistrate (Mr. Herbert Curteis) acted with promptitude and temperance. The men in the Preventive Service were called to assist in putting down the rioters. Rye was not a place from which the Blockade Service could be safely drawn away, and, in order to let them attend to their own duty, he (Sir R Peel) ordered troops to go in aid of the civil service. There was no alternative but to give protection to property. He hoped the gallant Colonel would interfere with his constituents, and advise them on their conduct in this matter. The Magistrate was perfectly right in preventing the destruction of the sluice by night and by violence.

§ Sir Charles Burrell
agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and bore testimony to the proper conduct of Mr. Curteis.

§ Mr. Otway Cave
said, that one reason why there was no opposition to the bill in going through the House was, that there was no Member then in the House to represent the interest of the town of Rye. The Court of Chancery decreed the sluice to be a nuisance, and yet a new bill was brought in, in the face of that decree; by which bill only seven feet of water would be left in the harbour. He was not much surprised, under all the circumstances, that the people took into their own hands the execution of the decree of the Court of Chancery.

§ Colonel Evans
in moving that it be printed, contended that it was a very dangerous precedent to allow the Magistrates to call in the military whenever they 1144 thought proper, particularly in those cases where their own pecuniary interests were concerned as in the present instance. Mr. Curteis, the father of the Magistrate, was the owner of 3,000 acres of land in that neighbourhood. No doubt it was very convenient for him to have his land drained, though it might be the ruin of other people. He spoke not from the slightest personal feeling on the question; but he could not help observing that one of the persons, who was himself the most interested in the result, was foremost among the number of those who were most active in furthering the infamous and flagitious bill that was now pending before the other House of Parliament. It appeared that, in consequence of what had already occurred, the public market had been removed from Rye to Winchelsea. The town of Rye had experienced a double grievance; for some time, in the first place, its political privileges had been usurped; and, in the next, its local interests were trafficked away. But the former grievance was now removed, and he sincerely hoped that the latter would very soon be redressed. A proposition had been made to remove the military, upon condition of security being given for the peace of the town. To this he could only reply that the peace of the town had never once been disturbed, and the military were kept there only for the purpose of protecting a public nuisance.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
maintained, that the hon. and gallant Member was misinformed in stating that the market had been removed to Winchelsea, and he explained, that what he said about giving security was, that the troops would be withdrawn whenever security was given that the peace of the town should not be disturbed.

§ Mr. Otway Cave
observed, that the great object appeared to be for certain landed proprietors to consult their own immediate interests at the expense of the people and harbour of Rye.

§ Mr. Burrell
said, it was quite a mistake to suppose that the landowners in the neighbourhood of Rye desired the ruin of the harbour.

§ Mr. Hume
would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member not to press the printing of the Petition, as the subject was now under consideration. At the same time he thought it the duty of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Deparlment, to oppose to the utmost extent the 1145 Bill that was in progress through the other House.

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, it was no part of his duty to interfere with the progress of any bill that was before the other House of Parliament; neither did he think that he was called upon to interfere officially with private bills in any respect. Presuming even the alleged grievance to exist, he still thought that it ought not to be redressed in a tumultuous manner. If the parties should find that they had a right to abate the nuisance by law, there would be no opposition whatever offered on his part.