HL Deb 26 August 1835 vol 30 cc1002-8
Viscount Duncannon

moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill. By the law as it now stood, there were four provincial inspectors of police, and a deputy-inspector, in each county. The provincial inspector, of course, superintended all matters of police in his province, and the county deputy-inspector superintended those in his district. By the present Bill it was proposed that there should be one general inspector of police for all Ireland, with a salary of 1,000l. a-year, the deputy at a salary of 600l. a-year; and there should be an officer, called a sub-inspector, in each county, with a salary of 300l. a-year. These sub-inspectors were to be taken from the present class of chief constables. By the law at present the magistrates had the appointment of the constabulary force, but in almost every instance they allowed the appointments to be made by the inspector, and experience had shown that the constables selected by the latter were of a better class, and more efficient, than those appointed by the magistrates themselves. By the present Bill it was proposed to take the appointment from the magistrates altogether, and to vest them in the inspector, who should be appointed by the Crown. By this arrangement it was not intended to throw any slur upon the magistrates, but to render the force more efficient by concentrating the authority under which they acted. The Bill also proposed, that in order to render the police more efficient, and in order to hold out a reward for the faithful performance of duty, a superannuation fund should be provided, to give a retiring allowance to those who deserved it, after a certain period of service. One object of the Bill was to assimilate as much as possible the police force of Ireland to that of this country. And by the arrangements of this Bill, he expected the superintendence would be more efficient and much less expensive to the country. An objection had been made to transferring the appointment of the constabulary force from magistrates to inspectors appointed by the Crown, but that arrangement was necessary in order to make the police an efficient force. Noble Lords opposite might, he was aware, deal with the Bill as they liked; but having moved the second reading of it, he should feel it his duty, if the Motion were opposed, to take the sense of the House upon it.

The Marquess of Londonderry

objected to transfer to the Crown the appointment of the constabulary force, because he believed that the power thus transferred would in effect come to the hand of the individual to whom the noble Viscount and his friends were so much indebted for being in the Government.

The Earl of Roden

said, the Bill would take the appointments out of the hands of the magistrates, who were a most excellent and fearless body of men. It was an object to make country gentlemen resident on their estates in Ireland, but this would tend to banish them. The Bill was one which had not passed without strong objections in the other House, but it was supported of course there by those whose object it was to put the Irish magistracy down. There were several other objections which he had to the details of the Bill. One was to that part which empowered the inspectors to train to the use of arms men who would be placed on the lists from which the future appointments of the police were to take place. He thought this objectionable, because when so trained they were not bound to enter the police, and their skill and knowledge of arms might be afterwards used to forward the purposes of some reckless demagogue. He also objected to what he considered the unconstitutional principle of giving the Crown a power to appoint a force paid by the country, and over which the country would not have the same control as it would over a regular force. A similar proposition was made in a bill introduced in the year 1822 by Mr. Goulburn, and it was objected to on this very ground by several individuals who were either members or supporters of the present Government; amongst others by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), who spoke against it, as did also another noble Lord (Althorp), then a Member of the other House; and in the minority on the division on that occasion he found the names of Henry Brougham, Lord Althorp, Lord Duncannon, C. Grant (now Lord Glenelg), and several others, friends of the present Administration. On these grounds he could not consent to the Bill, and would, therefore, move as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

The Marquess of Clanricarde

said, the noble Earl, in his reference to the Bill of Mr. Goulburn, and in his charge of inconsistency in those who opposed parts of it, and supported similar enactments in the present Bill, should have considered the different state of circumstances in Ireland in that day and the present. That difference would justify the change of opinion as to the course that was pursued then, and that which ought to be pursued now. As to the taking the power of appointing the constabulary force from the Magistrates, it was only taking from them that which in effect they had already relinquished. The inspectors had it already, and the present Bill went only to give them de jure what they already possessed de facto; their Lordships had the authority of the Magistrates themselves for saying that the inspectors were the proper persons to have the appointment by having left it to them so long. It was, therefore, he contended, no slur upon the Magistrates to take away a power which in effect they had already voluntarily relinquished.

Lord Brougham

said, the Bill was not in all points the Bill of 1822, but even if it were, the circumstances to which it applied were different. "It is said," continued the noble and learned Lord, "that this Bill is supported by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and that it will promote his views. Now I have a very high respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman. I respect him for his great talents, and high legal knowledge. I respect him for that large share of the confidence of a great portion of my fellow-countrymen which he possesses. But with all this respect I cannot consent to make him the dictator of my vote, which I must do, if, by the strange logic used by noble Lords on the other side,—I must, on every occasion on which he supports a measure which I approve, vote against that measure, and for the simple reason that he supports it." He had looked carefully into the Bill, and would give it his support.

Lord Farnham

thought, the present state of the police good, and he would let it remain as it was.

The Earl of Winchilsea

approved of the Amendment. He would not assent to any measure which took away the power of the Magistrates, but he objected to this Bill on higher grounds. He considered it one of those three instalments which were to be paid to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin for his support of the present Administration. The first was the placing at his disposal a certain portion of the revenues of the Church of Ireland. The second was the present Bill, which would give him an immense influence and control over the whole of the police force of that country; and the third, which had not yet come up to their Lordships' House, was such an alteration in the state of the representation in Ireland as would place nearly the whole of the elective power in his hands. He would on these grounds oppose the present Bill.

Lord Hatherton

proved from experience that great inconvenience resulted from the present system of police in Ireland, and that inconvenience justified the change proposed by the Bill. In the communications from Government which referred to some local matter which required dispatch it often happened that it was necessary to send first to the provincial inspector, who communicated with the sub-inspector for the county, who addressed himself to the chief constable of the district. It might be said, why not communicate with the chief constable on the spot, in the first instance? That, no doubt, could be done, but it involved this inconvenience—that he who should in the regular course of communication know it first, would be the last to learn it. These difficulties would be removed by the plan proposed in the Bill. It was said that this would give pain to the Magistrates of Ireland. He had had good opportunities of knowing the sentiments of many of that body, and he could assure their Lordships they did not look with any feeling of jealousy at the removal of the appointment of the constabulary force from their hands. However, if their Lordships thought this part of the Bill objectionable, they might remove it in the Committee; but let them not reject the whole Bill on that account. He could assure their Lordships that this Bill had been approved by the Marquess Wellesley and Lord Stanley, and was now in nearly the same state as that in which he had found it on coming into office.

The Marquess of Headfort

did not think that the Bill cast a slight on the Magistrates, and he would support it.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, that if there were no police force at present in Ireland, he should prefer the plan now proposed to the existing law, though he admitted the present force to be efficient; but there were some parts of the proposed plan which he greatly admired; for instance, that of having one general superintendant of police for the whole country, and also the plan of superannuation. He objected, however, to the general and sweeping change which the Bill proposed in the removal of the whole of the present body at once. He also objected to taking from the Magistrates the power of appointing the constabulary force. It was true the inspectors had generally exercised the power of appointment, but it was by consent of the Magistrates, and under their control; but his chief objection was, that the Magistracy of Ireland would receive it as a withdrawal of confidence from them. On the whole he thought the Bill well digested, and not the result of any dictation elsewhere: but he thought it too late in the Session to discuss a measure of this importance, and he would therefore recommend that it should be kept over till next Session, before which a more full opportunity would be given for reconsidering the whole of its provisions, and with that view he should vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend.

Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey

said, that when this measure was first introduced, he had supported the vesting the appointment of the constables, not in the Magistrates, but the Crown; but it had been given to the Magistrates, and it worked well, for though the Magistrates had virtually transferred the power to the inspectors, still they exercised a salutary control over it by the power of recalling it whenever they saw it abused; and having so used the power which the Act thus placed in them, he thought it would be casting a slur and a stigma upon them to take it now out of their hands. He also objected to the late period, the 26th of August, for the second reading of a measure of this importance when there was no opportunity for fully discussing it.

The Marquess of Westmeath

said, he should be ashamed to show his face amongst his brother Magistrates in Ireland if he consented to take from them that power which they had so long and so faithfully exercised. He would support the Amendment.

Lord Glenelg

supported the Bill, and defended his consistency in supporting that part of it which he had opposed in 1822, on the ground of the altered state of circumstances in Ireland. He did not think that the omission of the clause relating to the power of the Magistrates would impair the general efficiency of the measure, and he hoped that those noble Lords who were favourable to the other parts of the Bill would not reject it altogether, as they would have an opportunity of omitting that clause in the Committee.

The Earl of Haddington

bore testimony to the good conduct and efficient state of the police in Ireland. He did not oppose this Bill on the ground of its attempting an improvement of that force, but he did object to it on the ground that it would take away from the Magistracy that salutary control which they had exercised over the constabulary appointments. He had one other objection to the Bill, and it was summed up in these words—that was the 26th of August. The Bill had been in the possession of the Irish secretaries, he might say ready prepared, for the last three or four years, and it was now, on the 26th of August in the present Session, brought before the House. At such a period of the year how could they be called on to make so great and essential a change in the police force in Ireland?

Viscount Duncannon

assured the House that there was not the least intention of throwing any slur upon the Irish Magis- trates. There were some noble Lords who seemed to say they would vote against everything which Mr. O'Connell had supported. Without dwelling longer on that point he should just add, that if they wished to deal fairly with the measure, they would read it a second time, and do what might be necessary to amend it in Committee.

The House divided on the original Question. Contents 39; Not Contents 51: Majority 12.

Bill postponed for six months.