HC Deb 23 May 1856 vol 142 cc605-14

Bill, as amended, considered.

SIR GEORGE GREY moved the insertion of two clauses, the first declaring that the "provisions relating to the borough police be applicable to the places referred to in the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 88, sec. 20, until discontinued." The second clause declared that "the separate police in such places (having a population of 15,000) were not to be superseded without the authority of the Secretary of State."

Clauses agreed to.

SIR HENRY STRACEY moved the insertion of a clause exempting horses and carriages used by the officers of the police force from the assessed duties. He was induced to move the insertion of this clause because it was well known that the horses of officers in the army, as well as the horses of officers attached to the Inland Revenue Department, were exempt from taxation. He saw no reason why officers of the police force, who equally served the country, should not enjoy the same right.

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that in matters of this kind they must be guided by practice. Now, officers' chargers and the horses of officers attached to the Inland Revenue Department could not be placed in the same category with those of police officers. Officers in the army and of the Revenue were in the service of the Queen; not so officers of the police force, who were under the control of the magistrates, and were paid out of the local rates. The principle might be applicable to Ireland, where the whole expense of the police was defrayed out of the public revenue, and where the police were under the control of officers appointed by the Government.

SIR HENRY STRACEY

But under the new Bill half the expense of the police will be defrayed by Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

That slightly alters the case, but still the expense was mainly to fall upon the county rates. The proportion to be paid from the Consolidated Fund was the same as in the case of the metropolitan police; but the horses of the metropolitan police were no more exempt from taxation than those of private individuals. And although he did not mean to contend that the matter was of any great moment one way or the other to the revenue, still he was not prepared to agree to a new principle of exemptions.

MR. HENLEY

thought that if the clause were accepted as it stood it would lead to interminable disputes. A police officer in the country districts usually went about in a tax cart, and thus travelling about he was very apt to take up persons on the road. Well, if he did so under this clause, the taxgatherer would be down upon him. The best way of meeting the difficulty would be to authorise each police officer to keep one or more horses, according to his rank.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

was in favour of the clause. Indeed he was inclined to the belief that the horses of the police were formerly exempt.

MR. PACKE

would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the horses of the yeomanry, a force supported by the counties, were exempt from taxation.

MR. SPOONER

said, he thought that in some parts of the country it had been usual to exempt the horses of the chief superintendent of police.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose the proposition in whatever form it was introduced.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BENTINCK

asked the indulgence of the House while he proposed a clause which was not on the paper of to-day, having omitted to give formal notice of it. The object of his clause was to provide that there should be appointed in county districts a proportion of not less than one policeman to every 2,000 inhabitants, and in every city and borough not less than one policeman to every 1,000 inhabitants, according to the last census. It appeared to him that unless a minimum number of the police force was compulsorily established by the Bill, the whole would fall to the ground, and become a dead letter. It was true that the Bill provided for a police force where it was already existing, and when the majority of the ratepayers demanded it; but he contended without some such provision as he proposed, as a general measure for establishing an efficient force for the prevention of crime, it would wholly fail. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) made an objection to his proposition, on the ground that practically it would be considered by the country the maximum adopted by Parliament. He (Mr. Bentinck) confessed he did not see the force of such an objection. He contended that by fixing the minimum number of the police force to be established, he threw no obstacle whatever in the way of increasing the amount of the police force wherever it was deemed necessary. It appeared to him, that unless the measure operated equally throughout the country, it was impossible to make it efficient for its objects. If any borough or county district were left without an adequate police force, it would become a receptacle for the depredators and vagabonds from other parts of the country. It had been shown that when an efficient police force was established, the amount of crime in the district was immediately reduced in an inverse proportion as it increased in the neighbouring districts where there was no police force to check it. In the latter case, it was often necessary to call in the assistance of the county constabulary, or of the military force, which was generally deprecated by borough Members. He contended that the adoption of his clause would prevent the occurrence of any such evil. Provided always that, after the passing of this Act, the number of Constables appointed and paid, shall never at any time be less than one per two thousand of the inhabitants of every County or Police District, or one per thousand of the inhabitants of every city or borough throughout England and Wales, according to the last Parliamentary enumeration of the population for the time being.

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the proposition was one which was certainly entitled to their consideration. Although he confessed he was at first favourable to the principle of having a minimum amount of police force fixed, nevertheless upon more careful consideration of the matter he had arrived at the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to fix any such minimum for a county or borough, because practically he thought it would be considered by the county as the maximum adopted by Parliament There were many boroughs which had a much greater police force than the hon. Member proposed. There, for example, was Liverpool—an exceptional case, he admitted—in which the police force was equal to one to every 450 of the population. He was afraid that if this clause were adopted it would convey the impression that one to every 1,000 would be sufficient in all cases. Now there was much difference in the state and circumstances of the boroughs and counties in England; and it was, therefore, most difficult to fix the minimum amount of the police force to be established in all places. He, therefore, thought it inexpedient to adopt such a proposition.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

must say that the right hon. Baronet had bestowed so much pains on this measure, and had shown such an anxiety to accomplish the object of providing the country with an efficient police, that it was with great diffidence he (Sir J. Pakington) dissented from the conclusion to which he had come upon the proposition before them. He confessed that he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk in thinking that it would be desirable to establish a minimum number of the police force to be employed. He could not concur with him in the minimum he had proposed; but assuredly some rule should be introduced. He thought for counties the number was too high; he would prefer rather one to every 3,000 of the population. He could not deny there was some force in the objection taken by the right hon. Baronet. Very great inconvenience would arise to the whole locality if any borough or district evaded the establishment of an efficient police. It might be replied that in that event it would be competent for the Government to withhold the Treasury grant, but their power in that respect afforded, no adequate protection to the public, inasmuch as the pecuniary saving effected by having a very small police establishment might be such as to counterbalance the loss of the grant. He thought, therefore, it was necessary to fix some minimum.

MR. RICE

thought there was an obvious difficulty in laying down a minimum applicable to all cases without exception. Districts in counties differed very much. He knew a county where the police rate amounted to 1d. in the pound in one district, and 5d. in the pound in another.

MR. PHILIPPS

was prepared to prove that such a minimum as suggested was quite unnecessary. In the county of Glamorgan, for example, which was a most important county as far as property and population were concerned, the inhabitants in 1841 amounted to 109,000, whereas in 1851 it increased to 180,000, exclusive of the large towns. During the Rebecca riots that county was remarkably free from those disturbances. The turning-point of those riots was, when they were put down upon the borders of that county. At that time the police, including the superintendent, amounted to only forty. The next county, however, where the riots did take place, had a much larger police force. He thought that fact was sufficient to illustrate the inefficacy of the proposition.

LORD LOVAINE

could not conceive how the Bill could carry out its object unless they enforced the necessity in boroughs and counties to make some provision for an efficient police force. He could not conceive why there should be any objection to such a clause.

MR. W. J. FOX

said, he thought the proposition unnecessary. He thought that population was a fallacious test by which to regulate the number of police required in counties and boroughs. Regard should be had to the occupations of the people, their habits, their liability to periodic distress, and their position in relation to adjacent communities. Towns clustered closely together could assist each other in matters of police, and did not need as large a force as isolated towns.

MR. PACKS

thought that a minimum force according to population would not work well. A thin population scattered over the country often required a greater police force than a thickly populated place.

SIR HENRY STRACEY

said, that the chief constables took population as the best test. There were some boroughs in which I there was not one policeman to 2,000 of the inhabitants.

MR. BENTINCK

quite concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich as to the great attention shown by the right hon. Gentleman upon this question as well as others, and he deeply regretted to find himself in a position to differ from the right hon. Baronet. Although he was by no means convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not, as it appeared to be against the feeling of the House, press his proposition.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LOVAINE

submitted the following clause:— In any borough to which such sum as aforesaid shall be paid, the Police whereof shall not have been consolidated with that of a county, the head constable or chief of Police of such borough shall have the general disposition and government of all constables appointed therein, and at his pleasure may promote, suspend, or dismiss, all or any of them, and no constable so dismissed shall be reappointed without the consent of the said head constable or chief of Police, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding. Although he did not wish to deprive the watch committees of any of the powers they possessed, yet, considering that they were an annually changing body, he thought that the efficiency of the police force would be much better enforced by the introduction of such a rule as he proposed, which at the same time would leave untouched the principle of self-government. The watch committees would still retain the power of appointing and dismissing the head constables.

Clause brought up. and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

was gratified to hear the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland declare he had no desire to interfere with the powers of the municipal corporations; but the clause he proposed ill accorded with that declaration. Me proposed to make the members of the watch committees courts of record for the acts of the head constable, to whom he proposed to give the general disposition and government of all constables, with power to suspend or dismiss all or any of them, and no constable could be reappointed save by such head constable. Now this clause meant one of two things—either to prevent the boroughs from taking the sum allowed out of the Consolidated Fund, or to destroy the power of the watch committees. He (Sir J. Walmsley) regarded it as an offence to every municipal corporation in the kingdom, and it would be difficult to obtain the services of respectable and independent men if they were to be placed in such a position, He had had much experience with municipal corporation affairs, and especially in watch committees, and he was prepared to say that their conduct generally was most praiseworthy, independent, and pure. Much opposition had been withdrawn by the boroughs to this Bill, in consequence of the right hon. the Home Secretary having withdrawn the obnoxious clauses which the noble Lord now attempted to reintroduce in another shape. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite might think, he could assure them that there was quite as much public spirit, quite as much zeal for the public welfare, and, he ventured to say, quite as much talent brought to bear in the management of municipal corporations as could be found in the best regulated counties. He ventured to call upon the Government to oppose the clause, should it be pressed to a division, in accordance with that spirit which had actuated the boroughs not to oppose the Bill as a whole.

SIR GEORGE GREY

thought, when the chief constable was appointed, the efficiency of the police would be best promoted by leaving the control in his hands. But as the Municipal Act placed the power in the hands of the watch committees, and as he believed that that power had been properly exercised, it would scarcely be proper, especially as the Bill had so far advanced upon the understanding that no interference with the powers of those bodies was to take place, now to take the control of the police out of their hands.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, that in all counties where the police was well organised the magistrates did not think they lost anything of their dignity by the control of the police, when once they were appointed, being placed in the hands of the chief constable; nor did he consider that it would be so in boroughs. At the same time, he did not think it would be desirable to interfere with the functions of those bodies, and therefore he hoped the clause would not be pressed.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

was glad to hear that his right hon. Friend did not intend to adopt this clause. It was proper to listen to the recommendations of the chief constables, no doubt, in appointing or removing the constable; but it was a very different thing to place the whole control and management in his hands, and to give him the absolute power of dismissal. That would be to supersede the functions of the Watch Committees altogether. As the Bill was originally introduced, it was open to objection; but as it now stood, the principle of local self-government was safe; so limited, he believed, the measure would be useful; but if its principle were too much strained, and the power of the Government were substituted for that of local self-government, as established by the Municipal Reform Act, it would create discontent and invite resistance. If it was found desirable, he had no doubt the boroughs would voluntarily adopt some such regulation as that suggested by the noble Lord, but he objected to its being forced upon them.

MR. PACKE

could not see that the power given to the chief constable by the proposed clause ought to excite any jealousy on the part of the Watch Commit- tees. Still, in the present position of the Bill, he recommended the noble Lord to withdraw the clause.

MR. BIGGS

also recommended the noble Lord to withdraw the clause. He should have expected such a clause to have originated with an Austrian or Russian rather than an English nobleman. He would never give up the municipal privileges which the noble Lord the Member for London had obtained for them. The Secretary of State had offered a bribe to the county Members, and they had swallowed the bait. They now asked the House to do for them what they had had the opportunity of doing for the last ten years, and they had not had the public spirit or intelligence to avail themselves of the opportunity. He would rather take up arms than surrender his municipal privileges.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his prudence in giving to the boroughs the modifications which he had made in the Bill. He should oppose the clause.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, that as the Bill originally stood it was highly objectionable, but the alteration made in it had made it more acceptable. If the county magistrates chose to surrender their command over the police they were welcome to do so; but, with regard to the boroughs, there was an arrangement with the Home Secretary that this power should be reserved to them. The power given by the proposed clause would give a greater power to the chief constable than any possessed by colonels of regiments or captains of ships. They could not dismiss their men at their pleasure. He should, therefore, oppose the clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, a very comfortable arrangement seemed to have been made between the right hon. Gentleman and the boroughs on this point. [Sir G. GREY: It is perfectly untrue.] Now, he did not want to interfere with any of these corporations; he only lamented that Gentlemen who represented the boroughs compelled the counties to take that which they did not want. He feared that the Bill would necessitate future legislation, and that the right hon. Gentleman would have to quote over again the police deficiencies on which he had already been so eloquent.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

would support the Government in resisting this clause. He thought the temptation of jobbery in this matter had been withdrawn by the clause already passed incapacitating the police from voting either in Parliamentary or municipal elections. At the same time, he could not agree in the statement that watch committees always appointed police constables from the purest motives. In two or three boroughs with which he was acquainted he could say that the police appointments were purely and wholly political, and every policeman voted the same way. Now, however, the watch committees possessed no temptation to go wrong, and if this Bill passed, as he trusted it would, the police throughout the country were likely to become a more efficient body.

LORD LOVAINE

said, that the evidence taken before the Committee showed that where there were brewers in boroughs, those brewers were on the watch committees, and the police were afraid to do their duty. The power of appointment would, under his clause, be left with the watch committees; but the clause would deprive them of that control which, under the Bill as it now stood, they would have over the police officers after their appointment. His only object was, to put the police in a position to discharge their duty without fear of consequences arising from local influence; but as he had no wish to disturb the unanimity of the House he would withdraw his clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill as amended to be printed.