THE METROPOLITAN POLICE. (Hansard, 5 March 1844)

§ Mr. Tufnell,

having presented a Petition very numerously signed, from the parish of Marylebone, complaining of the heavy burthen to which that parish is subjected for the maintenance of the New Police, and praying for inquiry, proceeded to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the cost of the Metropolitan Police Force, and the manner in which the sums levied as Police Rate, are assessed on the different parishes within the Metropolitan Police District. The hon. Member proceeded to state that the additional burthen to which many of the metropolitan parishes had been subjected under the New Police Act was contrary to the understanding upon which that Act had been passed, and was unaccompanied by any corresponding advantage. It was proper that he should state in the outset, that in bringing forward this Motion it was not his intention to make any charge against the efficiency or the conduct of the New Police Force. It could not, however, be denied that an impression had gone abroad, that in many instances great negligence, and, in some cases, unfairness, had been evinced by Magistrates in dealing with those cases in which policemen were charged with violating their duty. It was generally considered that when a person who was paid to preserve the peace violated it, the crime was greater in him than in another person, and that his punishment should be more severe; but it was felt that great negligence had been exhibited by Magistrates when instances of infringement of duty, accompanied by gross insult, had been brought before them. Those, however, were matters into which he had no desire to enter, neither was it his intention to complain of the central system by which the Police Force was conducted; but he objected, and the petitioners objected, that the understanding upon which 593 the New Police Act was passed had not been carried out. It could not be denied, that the system of watch and police that existed previous to 1829, in many of the metropolitan parishes, was most inefficient; and, to remedy the evil, the Committee of 1828 recommended the adoption of the central system, but on the understanding that the change should not entail any additional expense on the parishes; and they further stated in their report that as the protection afforded by the Police was local, the charge ought to be local also, and so far as the system contributed to local protection, he agreed it ought to be maintained by a local charge; but, instead of that, a uniform rate of assessment on all the metropolitan parishes had been imposed, without reference to their wants; and the consequence was, that a greatly increased expense had been entailed on many parishes, without any compensating benefit. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in introducing the Bill of 1829, founded on the Report to which he had referred, had distinctly stated, "that with regard to the tax to be imposed under that Bill, it would be less than the old watch rate." But so far from that being the case, it would be found that in many of the parishes most favourable to the operation of the law, the rate, as compared with the old watch-rate, had been doubled, while the number of Police had been decreased, and no additional security given to person or property. In the parish of Marylebone the sum levied under the old watch-rate had been on the average of ten years 9,500l., and the number of men employed had been 256. The rate levied in the same parish for the New Police was 20,000l., and the number of men employed 211. In this parish nothing like a corresponding advantage had been given; for the Police in Marylebone, under the old system, was justly considered a model as regarded its efficiency for the protection of life and property, and there was no proof of any abuse in its management. Mr. Moreton Dyer and Sir R. Birnie, in their evidence before the Committee of 1828, had borne valuable testimony in favour of that efficiency; and he was borne out in the assertion that in that particular parish, and in dealing with a subject of this kind, it was more satisfactory to adduce instances than to deal in general remarks. Though the expense to the parishioners had been doubled, no additional security to life or property had been afforded by the 594 substitution of the New Police for the old Parochial system. He held that the New Police Tax should be regulated fairly, according to the requirements of the several parishes. They were bound, in altering any system of local government, to respect local rights, and to take care that no additional burthens were imposed, without the consent of the several parishes which would be affected by the change. That course had been adopted in reference to the New Poor Law, for under that Act every parish bore only its fair proportion of the general expense, and gave its consent to the imposition of the rate by its representatives; but under the New Police Act, the expense had been increased year after year, till in some parishes it had been doubled, without any reference to the wants or feelings of the parishioners. Another objection was, that the great burthen of the police-rate fell upon those who were least able to bear it. It was true, that since the introduction of the system two Committees had been appointed to inquire into and report upon its operation, and he admitted that the decisions of both those Committees had been favourable to the system. But he contended that that important feature of the case—the unequal pressure of the tax—had not been brought forward. The City had refused, and he thought very wisely, to come within the central system in regard to the Police, and had established an improved system of their own. He understood that under the system as conducted by Mr. Harvey, the City Commissioner, the total cost for each man employed, from superintendent to private constable, was 76l. per head. While in the parish of Marylebone the cost per head for each man employed, superintendent to private constable, was 112l. per head. Another point he had to complain of, and which he proposed should be investigated by the Committee, was the unequal rate of assessment in various parishes. If the Act which made the nett annual value the rateable value had been in general operation, the mischief in this respect would have been avoided; but that system had been in a great measure inoperative, in consequence of the want of power to enforce it. He repeated, that he had no fault to find with the conduct of the Police Commissioners, or to allege that property and person were not protected under the new system. All he required was, that the condition under which the act had been originally brought in, and the system 595 introduced should be conformed to. He would submit the Motion in the terms he had stated.

Mr. M. Sutton

should not feel it his duty to trouble the House in stating his reasons for opposing the Motion. But before going further he must express the satisfaction he felt, that the hon. Member, in bringing forward his Motion, had disclaimed all intention of casting any imputation on the conduct of the Commissioners or the Police, at the same time he might be allowed to say, that it would have been as well if the hon. Member had abstained from making charges against the Police Magistrates, which they were not there to answer. With regard to the first branch of the proposed inquiry—the cost of the Police Force—the hon. Member must be aware that an annual return was laid before the House, containing the whole of the information upon that point which any Committee of Inquiry could hope to obtain. The hon. Member could not, therefore, found his Motion on the ignorance of this House—neither had he supported it by any charge or accusation against the force itself. If the hon. Member had taken that course, he (Mr. M. Sutton) should have been prepared to show that those charges and accusations were not founded in fact. With regard to the question of cost, the hon. Gentleman might have referred to the report of the Committee of 1834, which, after a most lengthened investigation, had come to the most satisfactory conclusions on that point. He apprehended that the petition which had been presented by the hon. Member from the parishioners of Marylebone (who, on that occasion, appeared to have preferred entrusting the hon. Member with the duty, rather than either of their own Members), was substantially the same as one of which he (Mr. M. Sutton) held a copy in his hand. And he found it therein stated, that before the passing of the Act of 1829, the parish of Marylebone had a local act of their own, which was sufficient to secure property and person; and that since the introduction of the New Police system, the cost of watching the parish had been doubled, while the number of persons appointed to watch had been decreased. But the whole principle of the New Police Act went on the supposition (which was a correct one) that the efficiency of a Police Force was not in its providing a sufficient watch within the limits of any particular parish or borough alone, but in its power of providing for the security of 596 person and property equally in the neighbouring localities. And he held that the security of person and property in Marylebone was maintained, not by the number of men employed there to preserve the peace alone, but more so by the means adopted to prevent outrages against person and property in the other metropolitan boroughs. But, in regard to the cost, if the hon. Gentleman took the cost of the Police Force in Marylebone, and divided the gross sum by the number of Police officers commonly on duty, no doubt his calculation of 112l. per head was correct. But the hon. Member should recollect that the number of policemen might, and would be, if necessary, increased at any moment. If the authorities of Marylebone parish applied for an increase, it would be granted; and, without any application from the parish itself; if the Superintendent of the Force were to report that more policemen were required, they would be at once sent: and this was a fair point of consideration in calculating the amount of the expense as the hon. Gentleman had done. It was true the hon. Gentleman had referred to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and had stated, as had also the petitioners, that the expense of the New Police had increased in Marylebone, and was gradually increasing. But was the hon. Gentleman aware, that since the establishment of the Force, there had been an increase of 43,785 new houses in the borough, forming 785 new streets, roads, and squares; and an increase of 110 additional miles in distance, to be watched? Surely the hon. Member could not suppose that that increase of property could be watched at the same cost as the old watch, which had so much less to take care of. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Committee of 1828, and had grounded his Motion on the Report of that Committee; but he had not referred to the subsequent Committee of 1834, which had been appointed to investigate the subject. That Committee had been first appointed in 1832, but the inquiry was so stringently gone into, that it was thought necessary to re-appoint it in 1834, and no man could have read the Report of that Committee without seeing that no single ground of complaint had escaped them; and he was quite sure that no Member of that Committee would concur in the present Motion. He did not deny the assertion that the Marylebone police, as it existed previous to 1829, was efficient, and that it was superior to any other Police of the time in the metropolis. He did not deny, 597 that so far as the parish of Marylebone was concerned, that Police was sufficient for all the purposes of watching, and for securing person and property; but though that was the case at a period when all the other parts of the metropolis were most inefficiently watched, it was by no means certain that a similar system of Police would be equally efficient now. Thousands of thieves, driven out of Marylebone, could formerly find a refuge in other parts of London, but now he apprehended the superior efficiency of the metropolitan system of Police in other districts, would make Marylebone rather an uncomfortable locality to reside in if the old watch still existed there. The hon. Member was not correct in saying that the question of assessment had not been considered by the Committee. If the hon. Member would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1834, he would find the subject had been considered and reported upon. The only ground which the hon. Member could have for moving for a Committee, was the alleged inequality between the assessment of Marylebone and that of other parishes. Now, he submitted that that could be in reality no ground for the institution of a Committee of this House, for the only thing required, if such was the case, was an application by the parish of Marylebone to the Magistrates, who had the power of remedying the grievance.