HC Deb 14 April 1851 vol 116 cc206-8

COLONEL SIBTHORP moved for a copy of the instructions given by the Commissioners of the Police to the police officers, relative to the preventing obstructions and other nuisances caused by the large travelling barrel-organs and advertising vans in and about the metropolis. He begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the substance of a letter which had been sent to him, and which he remembered seeing in the Times some time ago, relating the circumstance of a gentleman having been thrown out of his gig when driving along the Strand, by one of these advertising vans, in consequence of which he had suffered severely. The other night he had endeavoured to call the attention of Government to this subject generally, with the view of abating intolerable nuiances of this kind; and when he mentioned the subject to the right hon. Gentleman he found him extremely anxious, as he always was, to do whatever he could to correct any nuisances and evils in this metropolis. At that time the right hon. Gentleman had stated that an order had been given to the police on the 21st March, relative to this matter; and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the police had full powers in regard to street nuisances generally, and that as concerned street music there was a special enactment in the 26th section of the Police Act, empowering any householder, by himself or by his servant, to order the musician to cease playing before his house in the case of illness in his family; and if the offender refused compli- ance, he might be taken before a magistrate, and was liable to a fine of not more than 40s. [The hon. and gallant Member then read a letter which had been sent by order of the Police Commissioners, dated Whitehall, March 28, intimating that "the police had no authority to prevent playing music in the streets."] And yet the right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech that such an order had been given; and the letter he (Colonel Sibthorp) had read was dated six days subsequent to the right hon. Baronet's notification. After such a letter as he had just read, he really thought he was justified in calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman again to the subject. He did not himself pretend to know what powers might really exist, or how far they have extended with regard to this matter; but he must say he regretted that these nuisances did continue to the very serious extent they had gone. He had mentioned that a gentleman had been thrown from his gig by an advertising van and injured; and he begged to remind the right hon. Baronet that an hon. Member of that House had complained of the frauds that were practised on the revenue at railway stations and other places, by these advertising vans, which exhibited advertisements of all kinds without paying any duty whatever for them. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet was not aware of the extent to which such nuisances prevailed. He did not doubt his desire to put a stop to them as far as he could. There were also many complaints from tradesmen regarding the difficulty they experienced in passing through the streets.

SIR G. GREY

could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was very desirous, consistent with the law, to remove any of the obstructions complained of. With reference to the letter of the 21st of March, he (Sir G. Grey) could state that the apparent difference between the letter and the statement the hon. and gallant Member had made arose thus:—It had been stated in the newspapers that he (Sir G. Grey) had said that orders had been given to put a stop to all street nuisances; whereas he had said that any servant, owner, or occupier of property could complain of any nuisance to the parties, and if they refused to remove them, they could make a complaint to the police, who would interfere if it were a case within the law. The order of the 21st of March was not an order to prohibit all street nuisances, but to prohibit and order the removal of all such obstructions and impediments as were dangerous or obstructive to the thoroughfares. He had no objections to the return asked.

MR. BROTHERTON

had had complaints made to him of the interference of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) regarding street music. If the hon. and gallant Officer could enjoy the opera, they thought that he should not interfere with the enjoyments of the poor, for street music was an enjoyment to the poor, without its being a nuisance to any one. He (Mr. Brotherton) was glad to hear that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had not given orders for the removal of all street nuisances; but he (Mr. Brotherton) believed that the police had been more active than they ought to have been, and the poor ought not to be deprived of these enjoyments which the hon. and gallant Officer could afford to pay for at the opera-house.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

had no doubt that the hon. Member (Mr. Brotherton) had received complaints on the subject, and he might receive many more; but he (Col. Sibthorp) promised him that he would persist in doing his duty in order that the inhabitants might be secured from danger to their lives.

Return ordered.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.