§ Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had given notice of a Motion to the effect that he would direct the attention of the House to the evidence taken in the inquiry into the recent occurrences at Wolverhampton. As the evidence was very voluminous, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would state what was the particular point to which he desired to call the attention of the House.
Mr. Thorneleysaid, that the conclusion to which he came on reading the evidence was, that the Riot Act ought not to have been read, and the military ought not to have been sent as they were, through the streets, for there was no riot except at the Market-place and opposite the Hotel. His object was to prevent interferences of this kind. He believed that this House, and he was sure that the country at large, felt great jealousy on the subject of military interference. The resolution he had intended to move was, "That this House having taken into its consideration the minutes of evidence taken at Wolverhampton, as to the proceedings which occurred at the close of the South Staffordshire election, and the introduction of the military into that borough, on the 27th May last, when several persons were wounded, is of opinion that measures should be immediately adopted to secure the administration of justice and the preservation of the peace in that borough, without resorting to military force." But at present he was inclined to think it would be most advisable not to make such a motion. He would, however, wait to hear the noble Lord's explanation.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, it appeared from the evidence, that the magistrate acted to the best of his ability. He was as sensible, however, now, as he was when out of office, of the great evil of calling in the military unnecessarily to put down rioting; but if 1091 forbearance were carried too far, instead of its preserving the public peace it had very often the contrary effect. Much must depend on the measures that were taken beforehand. After an event had occurred, it was exceedingly difficult to determine what would have been the result of a different course of proceeding. In this case, some might be of opinion that it was wrong to call the military in; with respect to the Bristol case, on the other hand, it might be contended, that if the military had been called in earlier the rioting would have been sooner suppressed. He would assure the hon. Gentleman that this question had attracted a great deal of his attention; and he would add, that he thought there was wanting in the country a better system of magistracy in the populous districts, and a better system of police. He had already entered into some correspondence with the Lord-lieutenant of Staffordshire on the subject, and he should endeavour to introduce some improvements with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Villierssaid, that what had fallen from the noble Lord respecting the necessity of an improved police and magistracy, had given him great satisfaction, and he was sure that it would give great satisfaction to his constituents. The want of competent magistrates was a great evil throughout the country; but he believed that there was no district of equal extent and population, where the want of efficient local authority was more deeply felt than it was at Wolverhampton. He was glad to hear the opinion now expressed by the noble Lord, as if acted upon, it would go far to remedy the evil for which he should have been anxious to direct his attention to the results of the recent inquiry.
Mr. Thorneleywas understood to intimate that he would decline bringing forward any motion on the subject.