HC Deb 28 May 1839 vol 47 cc1059-66
Mr. Pattison

moved the second reading of the City of London Police Bill.

Mr. Grote

presented a petition from St. Mildred Ward, in favour of the bill.

Mr. Hawes

wished to shorten the discussion that might take place on this bill, first, by asking the Under-Secretary of State a question, and then ascertaining whether the promoters of the bill were willing to accede to what he understood would be the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers. He, therefore, now begged to ask the hon. Gentleman below him, whether he was disposed to refer the bill to a committee up stairs, and the House would probably allow him to state his objection to the bill should that proposition be refused.

Mr. Fox Maule

said, the hon. Member for Lambeth had taken rather an unusual course. The natural course would have been, first to assent to the second reading, and then to have raised the question to what committee the bill should be referred. He thought it would be more satisfactory to the public, that the bill should be referred to a public committee, where all its details could be fully and more fairly discussed.

Mr. Hawes

said, that perhaps his hon. Friend, the Member for London, would state whether he intended to oppose that proposition.

Sir Matthew Wood

could assure the hon. Member, that he should oppose every proposition that came from any opponent of the bill in every possible way. When there was a probability of a change in the Administration—he went to the noble Lord to announce his intention of having the second reading on the Friday, and understood that a letter had been received from the hon. Member for Lambeth, stating that he should not oppose the second reading of the bill, but making it a condition that the Under Secretary of State should be put on the committee. To this he consented. Not a word was said about a Select Committee. Was this bill to go to a Select Committee chosen by the hon. Member for Lambeth? Was there ever such a thing heard of as a private bill which was paid for by the corporation of London, being referred to a Select Committee? He was sure the House would treat this as they did other questions of a private nature. After they had changed the bill and made it suitable to the Commissioners of Police, it was not right thus at the last moment, to take such a step as that proposed.

Lord John Russell

must deny, that he had been guilty of any breach of faith. Having consented to the introduction of the bill, he certainly wished to see it passed. It was for the House to consider whether the bill should be sent to a Select Committee or be dealt with in the usual manner. So far as it was of public importance, he thought that a Select Committee would be the best tribunal, but he did not consider it of much importance which Committee was selected.

Mr. Hawes

would be enabled at one to clear himself from the unjust and unfounded aspersions cast upon him by the hon. Alderman. The hon. Alderman was, in that House, very loose in his statements. ["Order, order."]

The Speaker

considered that the hon. Member was out of order in making use of an expression imputing to the hon. Alderman, that he was very loose in the statements he made in that House.

Mr. Hawes

would, at once, bow to the authority of the Chair, and would instantly recall the expression which was thought offensive; but, at the same time, he would proceed to show that the hon. Alderman had then made a statement not founded upon fact. The hon. Alderman had stated, that the bill and all its clauses had been approved of and agreed to by the Commissioners of Police. He would undertake to say, that there was not the slightest foundation whatever for that statement. He positively assured the House, that they objected to the bill and to every clause contained in it. That was a fact, and he challenged the hon. Alderman to make good his statement. The whole question was a simple one. A Committee of that House sat for two Sessions. It was composed of Members of every shade of opinion, and their report had been unanimously agreed to. He would again repeat, that the Committee sat two years and took evidence, and on the evidence of the witnesses produced by the hon. Alderman himself, the Committee came to an unanimous determination to recommend, that a bill should be brought in placing the whole police of the metropolis under one head—viz., the Commissioners of Police. That report had been agreed to unanimously, and was in direct contravention with the present bill. Every Committee that had sat from 1792 to the present time had all agreed in recommending similar measures, and he would add, that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London, had recommended a measure founded on the same principles. The City of London professed to say, that the bill they now introduced was a bill founded on similar principles, as the Metropolitan Police Bill. He would undertake to show the House that such was not the case. The corporation appointed a committee, which was annually elected—they had the sole control over the police, acting under the instructions of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councilmen; so that the police of a district, containing 123,000 inhabitants, instead of being under one head, was under the control of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Common Councilmen, and the committee annually elected. The bill was also defective on another point, and he was surprised to find, that the bill did not state by whom the men were to be appointed. It stated, that the men belonging to the police force should not canvas or vote at elections, but the most important officer in the force was capable of having a seat in that House. The commissioners of the police, the magistrates of Westminster, were by special Act of Parliament prevented from having seats in that House, and he would put it to the. House, if they would permit the officer at the head of the City Police to be capable of being elected a Member of that House; because, if the Police Commissioner might become a Member of that House, he might be engaged in contested elections, and he would ask the House if they thought it was right and proper that such an officer should be so engaged. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord say, that he saw no material objection to this bill, when one of the most important officers under it, and who was to be in the receipt of a large salary, had the power of sitting in Parliament. He hoped that the House would not suffer this part of the bill to stand. The Police Commissioner was not a magistrate—possessed no authority as a magistrate. There was no positive law under which he could be recognised, and this officer would have the command of 500 men, and not be responsible for his conduct to any one except to the Corporation of London. If this officer were to be appointed a magistrate, the City would withdraw this bill, for so jealous were they on this subject, that they would not even permit the Aldermen to have the superintendence of the police. Another objection to the bill was, that it did not place the whole of the police under a commissioner, because by one of the clauses, it was enacted, that ward constables and ward beadles should be elected under the authority of the Aldermen and deputies, and wholly independent of the Commissioners of Police of the City of London. This bill, which the City had now introduced, was decidedly opposed to the Report which had been presented to the House in 1834, and to the recommendation of the Corporation Commissioners. It would not be difficult for him to refer to various reports to show, that what lie## had stated was correct, but if the House were disposed to give up the report of its own Committee, and the Government were inclined to give up the report of its own Commissioner—it was impossible for a single individual like himself to stand up against it; but when he saw that the western part of the metropolis bad been governed by a system of police without any complaint against them, and when he well knew that the expense of the present system of police was one-third less than the system proposed, he thought it was very much to be lamented that the opposition of the City of London was put forth in order to prevent a uniform, sound, and excellent system of police being appointed throughout the metropolis. It had been stated, that very few burglaries had been committed in the City, now he could prove from the Report of the Commissioners themselves that such was not the case, and he was enabled to show, that during those very years in which it had been stated, that no burglaries had been committed in the City a great number had taken place. There was no part of the metropolis in which crime was more prevalent than in the City of London, and, therefore, it was, that the metropolitan districts were entitled to require, that a similar system of police should be established there as existed in the surrounding districts. With regard to referring the Bill to a Select Committee, there were plenty of precedents for that. The present, it was true, was a private bill; but it related to public objects of great importance. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, when he introduced the bill with respect to the British Museum, proposed, that it should be referred to a Select Committee, and he did not see why the same course should not be adopted with the present bill. If he was compelled to divide the House on the second reading, he should do so; but if the Government were disposed bonâ fide, for there had been so much change in their opinions lately,—but if they were disposed, bonâ fide, to support the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, then he should have no objection to the second reading; if not, he should oppose it even if he stood alone.

Sir Matthew Wood

said, that such alterations had been made in the bill as appeared to the noble Lord, and the Under Secretary, in the meetings they had had with the Commissioners, necessary. The hon. Member for Lambeth wished to have the bill referred to a Committee, and he had made a very fine show by referring to the names of Gentlemen who had sat on the Police Committee of that House. He believed the hon. Member for Lambeth was Chairman of that Committee, and discharged his duties as such most assiduously, but he believed the Chairman was very often there all day by himself.

Mr. Hawes

I hope the House will allow me to give a distinct and indignant denial to that statement.

Sir Matthew Wood

believed, that when the very report which had been referred to was carried unanimously, there were only five hon. Members present, and he had a list of them in his hand. The noble Lord appeared to think the words he had used, in regard to the breach of faith, were too strong. He could assure the noble Lord that he left the room with the impression that the Government would support the second reading, but when he came down to the House he found the Under Secretary supporting the hon. Member for Lambeth in a very exclusive manner.

Mr. Fox Maule

said, it had been his intention to support the bill, because he approved generally of the various clauses, but on looking over the clauses of the Bill he found the suggestions that had been made, of giving control to the public officer of the Horne Department, together with the Magistrates of the City of London, were altogether omitted. However, that might, no doubt, be rectified.

Sir Robert Peel

said, Sir, I am sure the public are under very great obligations to the hon. Member for Lambeth for his consistent and unremitting exertions on this subject. The course he has pursued throughout has been most useful as well as laborious. Nothing, indeed, could be more fair than the part he has taken to perfect this important establishment, and I have no hesitation in stating my earnest conviction that his conduct has been most public spirited and most disinterested. As to the absence of members of a committee, that does not detract from the value of a report, for if they do not attend, the chairman has every right to take it for granted, that he has their perfect confidence, and to proceed accordingly. If they dissented from him, or disagreed in any thing, it would have been easy for them to attend and overbear his views by their votes or arguments. For my own part, I could not attend the committee, but if I had felt inclined to dissent from the general opinion of those who did, I should have stated my objections. Not having done so, I consider myself as having fully incurred the responsibility, in common with the rest, of conclusions set forth in the report, which was ultimately adopted. I can state, in confirmation of the assurance of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the opposition since manifested, was not heard of while the committee was sitting. I do, for my own part, exceedingly regret, that when I con- structed my Police Act, I had not the opportunity of making the improvements suggested in the valuable report of the committee. I did then (under the pressure of circumstances which I could not control, and to secure the introduction of a system which was denounced as rash, experimental, and dangerous)—I did consent that the city of London should not be included within its operation. Then, as now, the ancient privileges of the city of London were powerfully pleaded in exemption prejudices were awakened respecting interference with the ancient rights of freemen, and eventually the anomaly was established, by which we behold a small civic district, the population of which does not exceed 58,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, permitted to be arbitrarily governed by its own police, or a system different and distinct from that by which the peace and security of the whole surrounding district are preserved. Looking in the abstract to the inconsistency of this state of things, it is impossible that I should sanction or assent to it, as the incongruity and absurdity of the position must be apparent, on a moment's reflection. Indeed, I was in hopes that the natural feelings of justice, nay, even of convenience to themselves, on the part of the citizens of London, would have ere this induced them to consent to the more consistent and comprehensive plan proposed by the committee in their report; but now, looking to the case as it stands, and viewing the still existing and serious opposition on the part of the city, we are to consider whether, if it were forced on them against their inclination and consent, it would work so well as to warrant the hazard of the experiment. For my own part, Sir, I fear it would not, seeing the strong impression they entertain of such an arrangement being in violation of the ancient corporate privileges for which they so earnestly contend, though it must be confessed they did not make any such energetic remonstrances on behalf of other corporations when threatened with the interference of reforming legislation. However, I honour and respect them for their efforts in behalf of privileges they deem so valuable (though at the same time I feel they are decidedly in error as to the facts), and I confess I should anticipate little practical advantage from pressing a measure so contrary to their opinion, however abstractly consistent or beneficial as an act of legislation. I do think it perfectly fair, Sir, to defer to the general opinion of such an influential body as the citizens of London, in such a case as the present; and though I think the hon. Member for Lambeth is entitled to the highest credit for his persevering exertions, and has been quite right throughout in the course he has taken, I doubt the advantage that will result from his further opposition to the Bill, under the circumstances. I very much wish the city would consent to adopt the system recommended by his committee, and I think, Sir, they ought; but, as they are determined to reject it, I would advise him not to vote against the second reading. But I think we ought to fully understand the result of the present proceeding, and vote accordingly. If I am to force the plan recommended in the report on the city, I will vote first for the second reading, and afterwards for a select committee, to be chosen by the hon. Member for Lambeth, to accomplish that object; but if we understand, that the Bill before us is to pass without any attempt to force on the city of London more than it is prepared to adopt, I will vote (after it has been read a second time) for an open committee, in which such improvements shall be made as will harmonize with the Bill as it stands. Therefore, though I will vote for the second reading, I will not consent to the appointment of a select committee that will defeat the principle of the Bill. I want a perfectly fair committee, that will improve without attempting alterations which, though really good in principle, are altogether inapplicable in the present state of public opinion in the city of London.

Mr. Hawes

expressed himself desirous of following the course recommended by the right hon. Baronet, and hoped he should have his assistance to form a good committee. There had, within the last two years, been so many false foundations built upon, that had given way when the least pressure was felt, that he scarcely knew what to depend on, and seeing no better path to pursue, he would follow that pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. Peel

. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, if he finds things go well in this case, be tempted in future to extend his confidence a little further.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a select committee.