POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 July 1857)

§ SIR JOHN OGILVY
said, that without wishing to offer any factious opposition to the Bill or to delay its progress, he was desirous of expressing his objection to the principle of centralization which was involved in this measure, as opposed to the principle of local self-government, a principle which was dear to the people of Scotland, and to the loss of which they would not submit without a struggle. He was aware that the principle in question had been introduced into the English Police Act; but 355 he submitted that if the principle were erroneous, that was no reason why it should be embodied in the Police Act of Scotland; and he contended that it behoved the Scotch Members to resist this argument at the outset, otherwise it would be drawn into a most dangerous precedent, and whenever upon a future occasion they might think proper to oppose the principle of centralization they would be told that they were too late, for it had already been adopted both in Scotland and in England. The learned Lord no doubt would endeavour to persuade the House that it was necessary that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have a controlling power over the police force, inasmuch as the Bill provided that under certain circumstances the Imperial Exchequer should grant a sum towards the expenses of the force not exceeding one-fourth. He (Sir J. Ogilvy) objected to this proposition as an attempt to bribe the people of Scotland, and he trusted that the Lord Advocate would concede the point with reference to local self-government, and adopt the Amendments which he had, in the discharge of his duty, ventured to propose to the House. He thought the control of the police force ought to be given to the Commissioners of Supply.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that he would state his views upon the subject when the particular clauses came under consideration.

§ SIR JAMES ANDERSON
said, he should propose the insertion of words, to give the Provost or Chief Magistrate of every burgh consolidated with the county for the purposes of this Act, a voice on the police committee.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he must object to the proposition, on the ground that it would give small burghs too great a voice on the police committee.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
remarked, that he could only agree to the principle being applied to the royal burghs, and suggested that the consideration of the clause should be postponed.

§ SIR JOHN OGILVY
proposed, after the word "government," to leave out the words "pay, clothing, and accoutrements and necessaries."

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that he would take this opportunity of answering the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundee (Sir J. Ogilvy) with respect to local self-government. The clause with reference to the interference of the Secretary of State was, word for word, the same as had been introduced into the English Act, and consequently gave him no greater power. The Government came forward to take a certain share in the expense of maintaining the police force, and they naturally stipulated that the same powers should be given to the Secretary of State in Scotland as were given to him in England. The hon. Baronet had said that the principle of the measure was opposed to the feelings of the people of Scotland, but he thought that the country gentlemen in England were just as jealous of centralization as the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland could possibly be; still the English Bill had been passed, and it was found to work extremely well. The principle of local self-government was a perfectly sound one if properly carried out, but he could mention one or two facts which his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee might ponder on with advantage. The upper ward of Lanarkshire, for example, did not possess a single policeman. So much for local self-government! A man accused of crime in the county of Midlothian had only to step across to the county of Lanark, and there was not a single policeman there to apprehend him. The consequence was, that it became an asylum for all the criminals of Scotland. Again, in autumn last a riot occurred in the town of Kelso, and the mob assembled became very riotous, and among other outrages burned down a Roman Catholic chapel. Local self-government was represented there by a superintendent of police and one man, and on the trial of the rioters the superintendent and his man were examined as to what they had done. They stated that they had gone as close to the spot as they dared, but that they had been received with such a volley of stones that they had thought it well to retreat to their homes. He (the Lord Advocate) did not mean to say that this was the general state of things in Scotland, but he mentioned these instances to show what might occur under local self-government. He assured the Committee that there was nothing to be 357 apprehensive of in the amount of centralization which was contemplated by the Bill.

§ MR. CUMMING BRUCE
said, that he thought that there was a good deal in what had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundee (Sir J. Ogilvy), and that the principle of centralization was carried a great deal too far. Every one must admit that it was essential that it should be compulsory on every county in Scotland to establish an efficient police force; but he thought that all the minor details, such as pay, clothing, accoutrements, and so on, should be left in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, who were quite adequate for the purpose. The great defect in the Bill was, in his opinion, that it did not provide for the appointment of a good central force of detective police, whose services would be extremely valuable in Scotland, especially if they were a moveable force, which might be sent to any part of the country where an emergency arose.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
observed, that he was astonished to hear that the upper ward of Lanarkshire, with which he was connected by residence and property, was a nursery of crime. He said that, being a supporter of the Bill, as were the inhabitants of Lanarkshire generally.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, he had not stated that the upper ward was a nursery of crime. What he said was, that there was not a constable to arrest criminals who fled thither. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Cumming Bruce), he thought that such a force would be desirable, and that it was a matter to be considered.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
remarked, that he also thought that such things as the clothing and accoutrements of the police might be left to the Commissioners of Supply.

§ MR. BLACK
thought the Bill gave too much power to the Government in respect to small matters of detail.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he saw no reason why the Commissioners of Supply should not have the regulation of the clothing, accoutrements, &c., of the police.

§ MR. W. EWART
supported the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT MELGUND
remarked, that centralization was going too far, and that he should support the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the power given to the Secretary of State had not been first conferred by the Act of last, Session, but had existed ever since the 358 original Act, which was passed when Lord Normanby was Secretary of State, twenty years ago. The rules laid down by the Secretary were of the most general character, being calculated mainly to ensure uniformity in the management and control of the police force; and as he was not aware that any objection had ever been taken in England to the exercise of the power in question, he could see no reason why the same principle should not be applied to Scotland.