HC Deb 17 March 1865 vol 177 cc1900-6
MR. COX

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the large increase in the amount now paid by the metropolis for Police Rate; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to what purpose such increased payment is applied. A rate was generally supposed to mean the levying of a sum of money having regard to two circumstances—first, the amount of money required, and next, the amount of property upon which it was to be levied. Unfortunately that was not the mode adopted for the metropolis with reference to the police rate, but it was an arbitrary rate, and the inhabitants were bound to raise the sum demanded, whether the amount produced was required or not. He would call attention to the Act of Parliament under which the police rate was levied in the Metropolis, because the case turned entirely on the words of the Act. The Act stated— That the Sum to be paid for the Purposes of the Police under this Act shall not exceed in the whole in any one Tear the rate of Eightpence in the Pound on the full and fair annual Value of all Property rateable for the Relief of the Poor within such Parish, Township, Precinct, or Place, such full and fair annual Value to be computed according to the last Valuation for the Time being acted upon in assessing the County Rate. They had, however, been going on paying 6d. in the pound on a former assessment without knowing how the money was expended. The police had not been increased, and their visits were like angels' visits, "few and far between," and the money had been paid hitherto with content without knowing whether or not they got full value for their money. Within the last eighteen months, however, there had been a new. assessment of the county, and they now found that the ratepayers were called upon to pay 6d. in the pound police rate on an increased valuation of £1,978,000. By a Return that had just been made of the parish of St. Mary, Islington, the increased payment in that parish had been at the rate of 12½ and 13 per cent. Now, perhaps he should be told that that was an increasing parish, and that the increased payment was owing to the increased valuation of the property; but he found that in another parish where no increase had taken place in the value of house property the police rate had increased 10 per cent during the last two years; yet, for all that, they had not received an extra policeman to protect their property. The result was that the metropolis was called upon to pay nearly £25,000 for police rate more than was paid in 1863; yet, so far as he knew, the police had not been increased, neither had burglaries or crimes diminished during that period. £25,000 would pay the interest upon a large sum of money. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons)wished to put another penny tax upon coals in order to free the bridges of the metropolis; but the £25,000 of which he had spoken would go a good way to pay the interest of the money raised for that purpose.

MR. AYRTON

was of opinion that the matter adverted to was of great importance and deserved the serious consideration of metropolitan Members, for the condition of the metropolis in respect to police arrangements was of an extraordinary kind. It was many years since the experiment of the Metropolitan Police began by the substitution in a few parishes of policemen for the parish watch- men, under the control of a Commissioner, The system had worked well; but when the Metropolitan Police went to Temple Bar, they found their functions obstructed by the charmed wall of the City and the Commissioner, and then naturally looked to the extension of his power in another direction, and, step by step, they had taken possession of territory which reached to the enormous extent of 687 square miles, and included a population of 3,100,000 persons, and comprised parts of Middlesex, Hertford, Essex, Kent and Surrey. In the heart of this district there was a spot reserved for the antiquated prejudices of the City of London, and the operations of the Metropolitan Police were thereby disorganized—the county of Hertford had an excellent police of its own and so had the counties of Kent and Surrey, and he saw no necessity for cutting off portions of those counties and placing them under the control of the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police. He thought that to make the Metropolitan Police efficient would be to divest the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police of those outlying districts, and give him that district in the heart of his territory, the separation of which from his jurisdiction interfered with the due execution of the functions of the police. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) complained of the expense of the Metropolitan Police; but the City of London kept up a more expensive police, and made the whole force under the Metropolitan Commissioner discontented with their position. If the police forces were amalgamated and the extra expense of the City police were distributed among the whole body, the best policeman receiving increased pay as a reward, it was not likely that the houses of merchants in the City would then be sacked, and the City of London given up to depredators who, when they had completed their raid, retired from the jurisdiction of the City Police. What was wanted was a police force acting over a more limited area, and with efficient supervision. There was an abundance of police in the metropolis. While in Manchester there was a policeman for every 780 inhabitants, in London there was one for every 423. Notwithstanding this, it was said that a policeman was not to be found in Islington. That might be because Islington was a virtuous place, and did not require police protection. He hoped the Secretary of State would turn his attention to the question, though it was dif- ficult to make any reform which affected the City of London, for if any improvement in the concerns of the City were contemplated the civic authorities immediately sent a circular to all the rotten corporations in the country, and got them to present petitions to that House against the dreadful attack which was represented as about to be made upon the franchises and liberties of the country; and the result was that the country was induced to believe that some design was in progress against our liberties—all because it was proposed to improve the metropolis by getting rid of some abuse belonging to a bygone day. He was quite sure that if the Secretary of State were to give to the City corporation some assurance that the thoroughfares would be kept clear whenever a civic show passed along, their opposition to the amalgamation of the police forces would be very much modified. ME. ALDERMAN ROSE rejoiced that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had been afforded an opportunity of giving vent to his views for what they were worth. He had suggested that the Chief Commissioner of police, having at present a jurisdiction extending over 687 square miles of area and a population of 3,100,000 inhabitants, should be relieved from his authority over outlying portions of Kent, Hereford, Essex, Surrey, and Middlesex, those counties having police of their own, and that he should be confined to the immediate jurisdiction of the metropolis. He (Mr. Alderman Rose) on the contrary, believed that the competition between the Metropolitan and City Police forces tended to their efficiency; and if the City were deprived of its local management with regard to the police, the result would be that the City of London would be added to the metropolitan area, and that this would constitute a great public calamity. They both acted in harmony, and the fact that they had succeeded in discovering and tracking out persons engaged in recent burglaries proved that the existing police arrangements worked well. The owners of valuable property in the City of London did not hesitate to deposit it in insecure premises; and not only that, but they let out other parts of those premises to four, five and six other tenants who left them unoccupied at nights, and for thirty-six hours together. They sometimes also left keys hanging near gas lights, and locked up their premises most insufficiently. Was it to be wondered, then, that with the amount of burglarious skill existing in the metropolis, and with thirty-six hours of uninterrupted possession, thieves should break through and steal? As to the principal burglaries which had lately taken place in the City, in one instance the police had given eight separate warnings to the man who was robbed that his place of business had been insecurely left. When persons neglected ordinary precautions in that way, they themselves, and not the police, were to be blamed. As to the corporation of the City having on former occasions, when its rights were attacked, appealed for assistance in defending them to the other corporations of the country, he would only say that it had made those appeals successfully, and he believed that, if necessary, it would make them again, with the like results. He did not think the country would ever submit to have a Minister of Police, with from 8,000 to 10,000 men, armed, drilled, and organized, placed under his control, and who would be amenable to the Government only and not made directly responsible to that House. The army and navy were continued by the Mutiny Act from year to year so as to bring them under the control of Parliament. Moreover, local supervision and local self-government afforded better guarantees for an efficient police system than an organization too highly centralized, and managed by one Commissioner, who in many cases was perfectly unapproachable.

MR. WHALLEY

thought that before the Home Secretary listened to any suggestions for extending the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, he ought to take into account the fact that the army of police exercised such a terrorism over the magistrates who administered justice in the metropolitan districts, that those gentlemen, having repeatedly remonstrated in vain against the arbitrary conduct of the force, had abandoned in despair the attempt to stand between the police and the public. Any extension of the metropolitan police was as opposed to the feeling of the public as it was hostile to the spirit of the Constitution, and it was essential, before any further expenditure was sanctioned for that object, that additional securities should be taken for the prevention of the abuses to which he had referred.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would not now enter into any discussion as to whether the City and the Metropolitan Police should be amalgamated. He must, however, say that he thought he had some reason to complain that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) should call upon him night after night to defend the conduct of the metropolitan magistrates from his unjust censures. The hon. Member said that these gentlemen had totally abandoned their duty.

MR. WHALLEY

explained that he had not complained of the magistrates, but simply mentioned what they had stated.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he could not tell what the magistrates might have said to the hon. Member; but in the discharge of their public duties in their courts they were constantly reported as expressing the opinion that for one case in which they had to find fault with the police—and they certainly did not spare them when they were to blame—there were ten cases in which they spoke of the admirable manner in which the police acted. To state that the magistrates were influenced by a terror of the police was to cast a most undeserved reflection upon them. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) had correctly stated the principles and regulations under which the police rate was raised. The increase in the rate arose from the increase in the number of houses and streets which daily took place, and also from the new assessment which had lately come into operation. The increased rental of the metropolis was £1,978,000, about one-half of which arose from the new assessment, and the other half from the increased number of houses. There had been a difficulty experienced in getting men to enter the force; and some of their best men had been anxious to enter the City Police, whose pay was somewhat higher. It had therefore been requisite to increase the pay of the sergeants and constables 2s. 6d., 1s. 6d., and 1s. per week respectively; thereby creating an additional charge of £19,600. He hoped this increase would be the means of inducing good men to enter the service. Another £8,595 had also been required for an increase in the strength of the force. He understood the hon. Member to complain that, although owing to the increase of houses in particular districts, there had been an increase of rating, there had not been a corresponding increase in the number of police; but he did not understand him to say that those districts were insufficiently guarded or inadequately watched. Any representations on the subject he felt certain would have the immediate attention of the authorities. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Police, he might state that it would be extremely inconvenient if the different counties to which the limits of the metropolis extended were erected into separate police jurisdictions. When members of the metropolitan force were found at distances of fourteen or fifteen miles from the metropolis, they were always placed there at the wish and for the convenience of the residents themselves.