HC Deb 10 July 1832 vol 14 cc215-9
Mr. Wilbraham

said, the Petition which he had to present deserved the attention of the House, and particularly of those Gentlemen who took an interest in the administration of the affairs of their respective counties. Though it stated the grievances of one county only, yet it could not be indifferent to the representatives of other counties. It was voted at a general meeting, presided over and signed by the Sheriff. Its general purport was, a complaint against the system of management pursued by the Magistrates of Cheshire in the business of that county. The grounds of complaint were many; and, as they could not possibly be interesting in their details to the House, he should merely read the heads of each from the petition, and then offer a few remarks upon two of them. The first complaint was, the arbitrary and oppressive manner in which the Cheshire Constabulary Act was carried into execution. Secondly, the extravagant expenditure of the public money. Cheshire had a source of revenue peculiar to itself in the profits of the river Weaver, which added above 16,000l. annually to the county rate. The expenses of the county were, however, double those of Essex or Derby, and much greater than those of any other county of an equal population. Thirdly, the denial of justice to those rate-payers who appealed for redress to the Quarter Sessions, the Magistrates shutting themselves up in a private room, and thence issuing their decrees. Fourthly, the additional fees extracted by these extra police-officers beyond those that the Act permits. Fifthly, the voting away a large sum of the public money for barracks at Stayley Bridge, unnecessarily, and uncalled-for, in which transaction a gentleman who lived in Lancashire, and came only to qualify for the county of Chester, took a prominent part. Sixthly, the extravagant expense of the gaols. Seventhly, the petitioners complained, that money was thrown away in building a lunatic asylum, much larger than the state of the lunatics of the county required. Eighthly, the large salaries paid to the Gaolers. Ninthly, too large an allowance to the Clerk of the Peace. Tenthly, the not dividing the Court of Quarter Sessions into two separate Courts, according to Act of Parliament. Various other kinds of complaint were, however, stated, with the particulars of which he would not trouble the House; but they summed them up by saying, that these burthens were placed upon them by Magistrates who had, some of them, no property in the county, and who could not have any sympathy or fellow-feeling with the petitioners. These were the allegations contained in this petition. It was his wish not to state his opinion on many of them: there were two topics, however, upon which he must make a few observations. Gentlemen were, perhaps, not aware that there existed in Chester a constabulary or police Act peculiar to that city. This had not, however, any reference to the ancient palatine jurisdiction of that county, for at the very moment (now three years ago) that pains were taken to rid Cheshire of that cumbrous jurisdiction which separated it from the rest of the country, that very moment was chosen by the Magistrates of that county, backed as they were and supported by the Government, to introduce this Act, which was totally at variance with the common law of the country, and contained regulations differing from those of any other county in the kingdom. He was then a Member of this House, and both here and in the Committee he had in vain remonstrated against its introduction. He was told by a right hon. Baronet, then Secretary of State, that it was necessary as an experiment for the rest of the country. Why Chester should be thus selected for an experiment he never could understand. Had any necessity existed, they must have submitted even to the severest laws—to an Insurrection Act. But no such cause was pretended. The experiment then was made; they were cajoled, and what was the consequence?—This petition, voted unanimously at a county meeting, deprecating the continuance of this law; and another, which lay beside him, signed by 1,400 rate-payers in his own hundred. This was the fruit of the partial and experimental legislation. He did not mean to assert that this law was of no use. It would be absurd to say that 100 constables dispersed over the county would not be as useful as the village constable in suppressing riot, and in detecting crime. This was not denied, that, in some places, it had acted favourably to the public peace. It was very convenient. But who paid for it? That was the question. He objected not to the principle of the Act, but to the arbitrary exercise of the powers given by it. He complained not of the Magistrates, but of this law, which gave them powers which they might exercise without reference to the wants of those whom they wished to protect, or to the numbers and character of the population whom they desired to control. Not to take up the time of the House, he would give one instance. The north-eastern part of Cheshire was composed of manufactories. If crime or insubordination was to be expected in any part, it would be in that dense population. Now, in the hundred of Macclesfield, the Magistrates had discreetly used the powers given them, and had appointed eight constables under the Act, which number was considered ample and sufficient. In the hundred of Nantwich, on the contrary, which contained 100,000 inhabitants less than the Macclesfield hundred, the Magistrates appointed twenty. This number, it was true, had been since diminished; but the people, still dissatisfied, appealed against the decision of their Magistrates to the Quarter Sessions. Their petitions were presented in open court; yet the Magistrates retired to their private room, and refused the justice which was sought at their hands, without assigning any reason whatever for their decision. If he had not another object in view, to which he should presently advert, he should certainly have moved to repeal or to amend this Act; but, finding that his Majesty's Ministers meant to bring in a bill for the regulation of the general police of the kingdom, he would take the liberty of asking his hon. friend, the Under-Secretary of State, now in his place, whether, in the ensuing Session, if he brought in such a measure, he would have any objection to include Cheshire in the general Act, and thus virtually to repeal their local Act. He had yet to say a few words upon a subject of more general interest—the mode of doing the business at the Quarter Sessions. It was known that the power of Magistrates was very much increased, by recent Acts, in levying rates and taxes upon the people. This could not, perhaps, be avoided; but, at least, it was some consolation to the people, who were so heavily burthened, and that against the principles of the Constitution, to know the grounds which induced the Magistrates to lay these taxes upon them. This could not be done unless by open discussion, as in this House. He hoped Gentlemen would take this into their serious consideration, and that some one would introduce a general measure to effect this object. The requests of the petitioners were fair, constitutional, and reasonable. They wanted no privileges; they desired only to be put upon the same footing, and under the same law, as the rest of their fellow-countrymen.

Earl Grosvenor

said, the petition was rather that of Mr. Edward Davies Davenport than of the county of Chester; and, after giving considerable attention to the subject, he must say, that the magistrates, he thought, had only done their duty. Instead of the county rates having been quadrupled in twenty years, there had, in fact, been only a slight increase. There had been a necessity, unfortunately, to enlarge the county gaol, and to build a new lunatic asylum; but the necessity for those two expenses, ordered, as they were, by the law, the Magistrates were obliged to incur; and he was surprised to hear his hon. friend complain of the latter, as he had always understood that the building had his sanction. He would not oppose the receipt of the petition; but he thought it proper to say these few words in vindication of the Magistrates.

Mr. Lamb

thought a further vindication of these gentlemen quite unnecessary. He could not say when a general police bill would be introduced, but when it was, it would, of course, embrace all the districts of the country.

Mr. Warburton

was quite satisfied that many of the complaints against the Magistrates were well founded; and, as they were of a most serious nature, he thought they demanded an investigation.

Mr. Paget

said, it was well known that the Magistrates had, at present, uncontrolled power over the county expenditure; and, considering the amount raised and expended, it was high time that they should be subjected to some check.

Mr. John Wood

said, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the Court of Magistrates was open to the public, and the accounts were annually passed. It was high time, however, that a law should be introduced, to make the practice uniform.

Mr. Wilbraham

would only say, that the petition was in no other sense Mr. Davenport's than he moved and prepared it; but it had the hearty concurrence of the public meeting called to take the matter into consideration.

Petition to be printed.