HC Deb 11 October 1831 vol 8 cc495-8
Mr. Hunt

presented a Petition from Jacob Wintle, stating that he had been cruelly beaten by the bludgeons of the police last night, as he was crossing Westminster-bridge, at the same time with a number of individuals who were accompanying him (Mr. Hunt) from the Rotunda to the House. Jacob Wintle had nothing to do with those persons, and yet he had been beaten on each side of his head with the loaded bludgeons of the police, and so deluged with his own blood, that he could not identify the persons who struck him. He came, in consequence, to the House for redress. The hon. Member complained of the bloodthirsty conduct of the police on this occasion, to which, he said, that he had himself been an eye-witness.

Mr. Lamb

protested against the presentation of a petition which could do no good, and might do harm, when no attempt had yet been made to inquire into the case of the petitioner before the ordinary tribunals. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no intention to screen the police when they used improper violence; at the same time, he must contend, that at all times, and under all circumstances, the police must be upheld by the Magistracy and the executive government. With regard to the mob in question, he had only to say, that its progress was very properly stopped on Westminster-bridge last night. The police had, with great difficulty, cleared the streets before the House; and just as that was done, at eleven o'clock at night, information reached them that a mob of 1,000 persons were coming from the Rotunda to the House with the hon. member for Preston. The police, therefore, warned the mob that they could not proceed further. The mob persisted in their intention to advance. The police determined to prevent them; resistance was made to their efforts, and in the struggle, it appeared that this petitioner, Jacob Wintle, was beaten by the police. The petitioner might be an innocent person; and if he was, then Gentlemen should consider how they collected mobs, as the innocent, by their presence, were often an assistance and protection to the ill-doers. He would do nothing to screen the police, and should be most happy to have a full inquiry instituted into this transaction before the ordinary tribunals.

Sir Robert Inglis

entirely agreed with the hon. Member, that the House was not the tribunal before which cases of common assault ought to be brought. He must bear testimony to the general good conduct of the police; which was a sufficient reason why the House should not listen to such trivial complaints. He did not wish to oppose the reception of the petition, and hoped the hon. Member would withdraw it.

Colonel Trench

bore testimony to the firmness, good conduct, and resolution of the police in the transactions of Westminster-bridge, which he accidentally witnessed. He was glad that the hon. Under Secretary thought it injudicious to collect great crowds. He recollected a procession to the King which was justified by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which was neither legal nor judicious. He had heard that a similar procession was to take place on Wednesday next, and he hoped that the observations which the hon. Gentleman had just now made, would tend to discourage the repetition of a procession which, though it now only shouted and lauded the King, might hereafter turn to other and more dangerous purposes.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that there was no act in his official life of which he was more proud, than of the institution of the Police Force. He hoped, however, that the House would not encourage the presentation of such trumpery petitions, as the remarks which they elicited from hon. Members, would have a tendency to prevent that Force from performing its duty in that able and resolute manner which the public tranquillity required.

Sir George Warrender

said, the services of the police were, upon all occasions where he had witnessed their conduct, most exemplary and praiseworthy, and he had great pleasure in thanking the right hon. Baronet who had spoken last, for having established that force.

Mr. Hume

asked the right hon. Baronet, whether he intended to propose the institution of any inquiry as to the comparative expense of the old and new system of police.

Sir Robert Peel

thought, that the subject referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex was a very fit subject for inquiry. He should have no objection to have a Committee to overhaul, and thoroughly examine every species of expense connected with the establishment.

Mr. Wilks

said, he very much approved of a Committee being appointed, but he thought the system would be improved, if there could be some sort of co-operation and superintendence on the part of the parishes.

Mr. Maberly

could not permit this opportunity to pass without expressing in the strongest manner his objection to these discussions. That House was not the tribunal for every petty question of riot and assault; if there were no other tribunal that could render justice to the parties, it would be well enough to bring the question here; but he must say, that while there were other tribunals to decide such questions, it was an actual waste of time for the House to discuss them. The House ought to put down such practices. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that this petition ought not to be received. He was a friend to the popular right of petitioning, but this was an abuse of that right. He must take this opportunity, too, of adverting to an unfair practice of the hon. member for Preston, in attempting again to speak after the reply of a Gentleman who had introduced notice of a Motion. The hon. member for Preston had a right to do so; but it was a rule of courtesy observed by all other Members of that House not to enforce that right; and that rule of courtesy had been observed by all the Members, until the hon. member for Preston came into it.

Mr. Hunt

did not know that that was the rule; and he did not recollect one instance in which he had done what the hon. Member complained of.

The petition laid on the Table.