HC Deb 24 March 1840 vol 53 cc16-23
Mr. Law Hodges

moved for leave to bring in a bill to render effective the ancient constabulary power of England and Wales. He said, that the act of last year had only been adopted by thirteen counties in England and Wales, and by only two to the full extent. This showed that there was some reluctance on the part of the counties to avail themselves of the power of the act, and the main cause which indisposed them was the certainty of the expense which attended its adoption. The bill, in his opinion, would afford as complete protection to persons and property as the act of last session at a quarter the cost. Of course it would only apply to those counties where the former act was not adopted. It would maintain the common law constables, but insure efficiency by a careful selection out of those persons who might be nominated at the leer. The magistrates would have power to increase the number of common law constables in populous parishes and districts, and to appoint a special high constable, to be assisted, if necessary, by three special constables, for each division of a county, who should have the superintendence over the common law constables of his division. He understood that the introduction at least of his bill was hot to be opposed; but, however this might be, he was convinced that if some such measure was not adopted, the only alternative would be to make the act of last session compulsory. That act had only been adopted in thirteen counties out of the whole, and he believed, that it never would become universal unless it were made compulsory, so enormous was the expense of it, an expense which the bill for amending it, introduced this session by the Under Secretary of State, went to increase materially. Many of those who had advocated the adoption of the act of last session in counties, had done so for very different objects from those entertained by the supporters of the measure in Parliament. He had received a letter from a gentleman in Kent, enclosing a pamphlet which the gentleman had written, in which one of the advantages derived from the new law was stated to be, that under it game might be cheaply preserved. He was not one of those who would ever submit to preserve his game on these terms. His objection to the act was, that, besides its costliness, it put a total extinguisher upon the ancient constabulary system of this country. If any attempts had been made to improve that system—if there was one statute on the statute-book with that object, he should have seen reason to give it up; but nothing of the kind had been done. It was as old as the jury system itself, and if the jury system had been as much neglected, there would not have been wanting persons to say, "this is a useless System, and ought to be superseded." The hon. Member then moved for leave to bring in his bill.

Sir E. Knatchbull

wished to put this matter to the very serious consideration of the noble Lord, whether he would not, after having consented to the introduction of this bill, send the whole matter before a select committee. Crime had increased greatly; it was confined to, he hoped, petty depredations; but that being the case, it had become a matter of general admission, that the establishment of a rural police was indispensable, and he was confident that a satisfactory measure would be produced by a committee.

Lord J. Russell

—I cannot allow this bill to be brought in without saying a few words, for my hon. Friend, not satisfied with stating his reasons in favour of his own bill, made some references to the Act of Parliament of last Session, and to the bill brought in this Session by a Member of the Government. The hon. Member seems to think that his own is a most excellent bill, and that the plan he proposes is much better than that which the Parliament agreed to. But great as is his admiration of the ancient constabulary, the statements he has made are not likely to impress persons with the advantage to be derived from that system at the present day. With respect to the Bill proposed by the hon. Member, I cannot say that it may not be useful in some of its provisions; yet it does not appear to me to do much, if anything, beyond what may be done by the bill at present in operation. As to the general working of the Act of last Session, how had it worked? The hon. Member thinks that a small proportion of the counties have adopted it. That bill was only passed in August last, and it might reasonably be expected, that the magistrates of counties would be disposed, for the greater part, to wait a little, and see how their neighbours fared, who had in the first instance adopted it. If out of the forty counties of England, thirteen have adopted it, which is more than one-fourth, I think that more has been realised than could have been expected. But, beside that, four of the Welch counties had also adopted it: and, so far from being dissatisfied, I think the Act will be adopted in future by all the others. I will not say that the system under that Act is perfect—nor do I think that any advantage would follow from a reference of the whole question to a select committee. The constabulary commissioners did investigate this question and brought out important facts, and, amongst others, that, should the bill of last year be effectually carried out in all the counties, there will be a great saving to individuals. I did not propose the bill of last year as a perfect system, for I thought that a general force, which would be under the control of commissioners, and payable out of the consolidated fund, would be a better system than the present. However, I had no wish to press my own personal opinion against that of the committee. I think, nevertheless, that the Act of last year, with such improvements as may be necessary, will enable the magistrates to provide efficiently for the peace and order of their several counties. The introduction of the bill now brought in by my hon. Friend, will not, I think, be of any essential service in settling the question.

Mr. Plumptre

was quite convinced that the old constabulary force would never exercise a proper supervision over ale and beer shops. He thought, this was one of the chief objections to the proposed bill of the hon. Member. It was necessary that they should have a force, which they should call the police of the country. The very certainty of its being known that these men had nothing else to do but look after the rogues and vagabonds, would act as a great preventive of the evils which existed under the old system.

Mr. E. Rice

said, that the bill of last Session was not applicable to agricultural counties. He should be very anxious that the hon. Member's proposition should be fairly canvassed. He thought the expense of the bill of last Session would be very greatly lessened by a clause to be introduced, giving power to appoint special constables. Still he doubted the applicability of the bill of last Session to agricultural counties.

Mr. F. Maule

hoped that his hon. Friend would take an early opportunity of taking the sense of the House on this question. It was but just that all parties should have but one system of police to look to, and one system alone. He did not think that it would be attended with advantage to refer the improvement of the constabulary to any select committee of the House—the former committee had given them all the information they wanted on this subject. He trusted that the improvements to be introduced would render the bill of last Session more applicable to agricultural counties.

Sir H. Verney

said, that at present agricultural counties might refuse the bill of last Session, and say, "We won't have it, because of the expense;" and he thought, if that was remedied, it would be be of great advantage, and render the bill a good bill. The whole country contributed towards the aggregate amount of crime, and the whole country should contribute to suppress it. Besides, generally in the larger towns, the police had driven the greatest vagabonds from them into the country, and therefore he thought all the country ought fairly to bear its proportion of the burden—establishing a good police in the country for suppressing the general amount of crime.

Mr. Gally Knight

had no intention to oppose the introduction of this measure, but he thought that the old mode of appointing the constabulary, did not render it efficient. The constables generally followed some trade or occupation, and were elected only for a year. He quite concurred with the hon. Member who had spoken last, relative to the expense of adopting the bill of last Session; and it was this which had prevented many counties from adopting it. He thought it ought to be considered whether a portion of the expense should not be paid out of the consolidated fund. He thought generally, that the bill ought to have been made compulsory; and that a quarter of the expense ought to be paid out of the consolidated fund.

Mr. Hume

thought nothing could be more unjust than the present system of taking money out of the pockets of the rate-payers in the agricultural districts for such a purpose, without check or control. He thought they should have the same voice in the expenditure of the rate as the people of towns.

Leave given.