NORFOLK CONSTABULARY. (Hansard, 26 April 1842)

§ Mr. Burroughes

in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for an Address for copy of a letter from Colonel Oakes, chief constable of the Norfolk Constabulary, to the chairman of Quarter Sessions, dated the 8th day of April 1842, with enclosures, said, that he felt it to be his duty to trouble the House with a few observations; and he doubted not that he would be able satisfactorily to explain the charge which had been made against the constabulary 1172 force in Norfolk by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The House would recollect the circumstances of the case as stated by the hon. Member. Now, he would not justify the chaining of a man to a stable, but the manger had not been used for a long time except as a place in which to put clean straw, and it was twenty-two feet long, and sixteen feet broad. The nearest lock-up house was much smaller, and any human being would, in the month of May —by-the-by, the only fine month during the whole of last year—prefer the manger to the dungeon. As to there being no lock-up house in the county, it had arisen from a resolution on the part of the county police committee, not to do anything in consequence of the motion of the right hon. the Secretary of State on the subject of the constabulary force. As to the conduct of Superintendent Smith, be wished that the hon. Member for Finsbury could hear the testimony to his conduct and character, which every person joined in giving. The day on which the man was apprehended was Saturday—the market day; and on that day the farmer's houses were particularly exposed to the burglaries of vagrants. On Saturday Mr. Smith apprehended the man, and he very properly took him to the house of the nearest constable, and found that the constable was out. What could he do with him? He conveyed him to the stable, which was in the neighbourhood, and which was a very fitting place. He had chained him, and he confessed that Mr. Smith had been wrong in doing so. The hon. Member for Finsbury had laid great stress on the order, "Feed him at two," and he talked of this as a very great hardship. Now, the man had only been apprehended at half-past eleven, and he was ordered to be fed at two; but he was fed long before that time, for the person who came to his relief had given him food at half-past twelve. He was again fed at two, and several times by passers-by during the course of the afternoon. In fact, the treatment which this man had received put him in mind of the mode in which turkeys were fattened in Norfolk. As to the case of the other man, he had been taken by the policeman to his own house, in consequence of the filthy state in which the lock-up house was; and being very fatigued, the policeman went to bed, and handcuffed the man to the bedpost. The next day was Sunday, and he could not take the man before a magistrate; so on the same night he took him into his 1173 own bed, and the man acknowledged he never lived better than on that day. The hon. Gentleman had attacked Mr. Borton, because it was necessary to have a shot at some one; but he could tell the hon. Gentleman, that there was no magistrate in the country more upright and excellent than that rev. gentleman. He had been a magistrate for twenty years, and employed in various high magisterial functions in the country. The hon. Member then read extracts from several entries in the lunatic asylum books, Mr. Borton being one of the visiting justices, to show the state of excellence in which that institution was maintained. He had also filled every post of honour in the college to which he belonged in the University of Cambridge; and it was only on finding that there was no other magistrate in the district that he consented to have his name put on the commission of the peace. With respect to Colonel Okes, nothing could exceed his desire for all the facts of the case being made public; and he therefore moved for this additional correspondence.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe

knew something of the merits of a Norfolk capon, but until then he did not know the exact value of a Norfolk magistrate. The right hon. Baronet had often complained of Members on the Opposition side, obstructing, by their motions, that most popular measure of his, the Income-tax. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would make no more such complaints, when he found himself thus obstructed, by one of his own Friends, in order, that he might listen to a eulogy pronounced upon the great merits of sub-constable Smith. The hon. Member was commissioned by the right hon. Baronet to inquire into this case, and they found that during the recess, the hon. Member had gone to see the stable in which the vagrant had been confined by Smith. He hoped the hon. Member did not venture into the stable with sub-constable Smith. The hon. Member could not tell what the vagrant had suffered, unless, like him, he had been chained short to the manger. The hon. Member had said, he had over-coloured his statement. In what respect? He asserted he had rather under-coloured than over-coloured it. What was the case? Smith was going from Yarmouth to Norwich, when he met the unfortunate man on the road. Smith jumped off his horse. He asked the man where he was going? He said, to Norwich. Smith asked him what he had about him? The other re- 1174 plied, he had no right to inquire. On this, Smith searched the man, and found on him a few religious tracts. He asked him what he was going to do with those religious tracts? He replied, to try and sell them. Smith then demanded his licence. The man confessed he had none. On this, Smith brought the man to the stable, and lashed him to the manger, between eleven and twelve in the day. He desired the constable's wife, to bring him food, and it was not until between seven and eight in the evening, the constable returned. The same policeman also confessed, that he was in the habit of chaining prisoners to the manger, if he thought it necessary, and that he had chained a prisoner to a bedpost to prevent his escape, and that he had once taken a prisoner to bed with him, and handcuffed him to himself to prevent his escape. These circumstances were reported to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and what did the magistrates state? They said, that there was no just cause of complaint, in this instance, against superintendent Smith. This decision of the magistrates was signed by the Rev. J. D. Borton, as chairman of the committee. He, however, found, that the right hon. Baronet took the same view of the matter as himself. He was not aware, until about an hour ago, that the hon. Member for East Norfolk was about to contradict any part of the statement which he had made to the House a few weeks ago. It appeared, that the hon. Member acted with the Rev. Mr. Borton, in expressing approbation of the policeman's conduct, but what did the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department say, after the investigation which the magistrates had made into the conduct of the policeman? From the language of the authorities of the Home Office, the magistrates of Norfolk would be able to learn whether or not this sort of conduct was sanctioned by the Government. He found, in the papers laid before the House, that Mr. Phillips made the following communication from the Secretary of the Home Office to Colonel Oakes, the chief constable of Norfolk, on this subject:—