§ Mr. T. L. Hodgesmoved, that the House resolve itself into committee on the constabulary bill. In the present unsatisfactory state of the law respecting the constabulary force in the rural districts, notwithstanding the legislation of last Session and that which preceeded it, he had been induced to bring forward this bill, and he would now state the general objects which it had in view to the House. His first proposition was, to take away from the magistrates at petty sessions all power of determining any scale of allowances of any sort, and also to take from them the power of making appointments, and to refer these two points solely to the magistrates assembled at quarter sessions. It was to be observed, that it was not his wish that the number of constables 1297 should in any way be diminished, because he thought that they were not now too numerous. Another object which he had in view was, to enable the magistrates at quarter sessions, upon application made to the Secretary of State, and leave granted, to appoint a head constable in any district in which it should appear that his services were necessary; and he conceived, that none of these propositions would in any manner clash with the provisions of the Rural Police Act. The 41st clause distinctly provided that the bill should not have effect in any county where the rural police had been already established. It was notorious, that county after county had rejected the rural police, and if the constabulary force could be made as efficient, and at less expense, he saw no reason why it should not be adopted in preference to such a body. The bill was now before the House, and he trusted, that he should secure its assent to the principles which it proposed to carry out.
§ Mr. F. Maulesaid, the hon. Gentleman who had made this motion would under stand that the opposition which he should now give was that which, but for the arrangement that had been entered into, would have been offered at the second reading of the bill. He gave the hon. Member full credit for the motives with which he had brought this bill forward. He was aware, that it was with no desire to throw difficulties in the way of Government, which he in general supported, but that he thought he was conferring a great benefit on the country generally, and more especially upon that locality in which he resided. But with all respect for the hon. Member, he must say, that he was mistaken in his views. The subject had already been legislated upon, as he believed, effectively. In 1839,a measure was brought in, and passed, for improving the constabulary force of the country. And in 1840 another bill was introduced, under the auspices of the Government, which, after much consideration, was passed into a law. By this latter bill a very considerable improvement was effected in the old system, as it existed previous to the act of 1839, and it also improved the act of 1839. The hon. Member's bill provided for the appointment of special constables. But this was already provided for by the act of 1840, which permitted the appointment of special constables for 1298 special circumstances. The great complaint of the bill of 1839 was, the expense that it entailed on the counties, but that objection had been in a great measure obviated by clauses that had been introduced into the measure of 1840, at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He (Mr. Fox Maule) anticipated the greatest advantage from the acts of 1839 and 1840, to those counties that adopted them, for although there might be some increase in the county-rate for a time, he was quite convinced that in the end the greater security to property which would result would far more than compensate for the increase in expense. The bill of the hon. Member (Mr. L. Hodges), if passed into a law, would prevent the adoption of the acts of 1839 and 1840. The hon. Member said, he had no intention to repeal the existing act, but the passing of this bill would practically have that effect; and what he more particularly complained of was, that the mere fact of the introduction of this measure deterred counties, that would otherwise adopt the acts of 1839 and 1840, from incurring the expense necessary for that purpose. The hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. L. Hodges), had introduced a provision into his bill, empowering the magistrates to appoint a chief constable, who was to be responsible for the conduct of the constables under him; he thought the central superintendence provided by the existing act far preferable; the existing act insured uniformity, whereas, under the bill of the hon. Member, each county and each district would have a separate set of rules. He would conclude by moving as an amendment to the motion, that the House do resolve itself into the said committee on that day six months.
Mr. Milesregretted that the Government had thought proper to oppose this bill, which, in his opinion, contained many admirable provisions. The act now in operation had been passed without that consideration which such a measure ought to have received, it having been passed at a period of the Session when those hon. Members who were most conversant with county business were absent on other business. In many places where the act had been adopted the rates had been increased one-third. This increase was more particularly apparent in the counties of Gloucester and Wilts; in the former of which 1299 the average of the county-rates for the last three years was 11,377l. 9s. 6d., and since the establishment of the new system they had increased to 15,962l. In Wills the average for the three years was 10,131l., and since the adoption of the present act they had amounted to 11,694l. 10s. In Hants and other counties wherein the act had been adopted the same result had followed. He should not object to the Government system if the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary, would allow a certain number of superintendents to be appointed over the several divisions or districts, and then take this bill into consideration, together with, and as it were pari passu with the Government measure, and this he thought would lead to the establishment of an efficient constabulary force.
§ Mr. Gisbornebelieved no one would deny that the old constabulary force was quite inefficient, and that the new rural police had conferred great benefits on the districts where it had been introduced. He thought the adoption of the present bill would lead to great confusion, and prevent the carrying out of the general act, which had not yet been sufficiently tried to justify the House in interfering with its operation. It would be most unwise to hold out this bill to the country, as a dissuasion from adopting the provisions of the Constabulary Bill.
§ General Johnsonconsidered the act now in operation a most unconstitutional measure, and wished the House would allow the present bill, which would in some measure improve it, to be considered in committee.
Mr. Ricesaid, he objected not only to the provisions of the present bill, but to the delay which it would cause in the adoption of a more efficient and better measure. The powers proposed to be given to the magistrates in petty sessions were highly objectionable.
Mr. T. Egertonsupported the bill, because it was founded on principles which had worked extremely well for several years in the county which he had the honour to represent. The House ought to have an opportunity of considering the bill in committee, where any suggestions for its amendment might be taken into consideration.
§ Mr. Ayshford Sanfordobjected to the bill going into committee, because he saw no reason whatever for the introduction of such a measure.
§ Mr. Brugessupported the bill, on the ground that it carried out many desirable points, applicable to various counties, which the former act did not comprehend.
§ Mr. E. Turnersupported the bill, and hoped it would be carried in committee, because it gave a just and legitimate influence to the magistracy of the country.
§ The House divided: Ayes 36; Noes 58; Majority 22.
§ [For LIST of DIVISION, see APPENDIX, NO. 2.]