The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-01-24 00:00:00

earreSpOrib riug.

To the Editor.

Guildhall, Dorchester, 20th January, 1865.
Sin,—Will you do the magistrates of this borough
the favour to allow the accompanying correspondence
to appear in your next number of the County Express.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
JOHN PETTY ALDRIDGE, Mayor.

Dorchester, 17th January, 1865.
I My Lord,—The attention of the magistrates for
' this borough has been drawn to a public report of some
remarks made by your Lordship and another magis-
-1 trate, at the late Court of Quarter Sessions, with re-
ference to the disturbances which unfortunately took
place bere on, and subsequently to, the 6th of November
last, and to the steps which heti been taken for the
future preservation of the public peace.
It has been with great regret that I and my brother
magistrates have read the report referred to, which has
appeared to us to arraign and question, not only our
interpretation of the Special Constables' Act, 1 Wm.
IV., c. 41 (which we should not object to), but also our
discretion, before apparently a sympathising audience,
and that too in such terms as to render our addressing
your Lordship on the subject imperatively necessary.
It would seem that the grounds on which your
Lordship found such serious fault with us are—let,
That the scope and authority of the Special Constables'
Act were applicable only to cases of tumult, riot, or
felony,' and that no tumult, riot, or felony existed to
justify the exercise of any of the powers of that act
within this borough on the occasion referred to. 2ndly,
A want of courtesy on our part in having omitted to
call into our counsel some of the county justices resident
in or near Dorchester, having concurrent jurisdiction.
3rdly, That if additional police force had been required,
it could have been obtained from the county police,
without any expense, if an application had been made
to the county juatioes for the purpose. And 4thly,
Our omission to call on the special constables appointed
annually under the sth and 6th Wm. IV., c. 76, to
assist the ordinary police force of the borough, if in-
sufficient of itself.

Now taking your Lordship's objections in their
order, I beg to draw your attention, and also that of
the Court of Quarter Sessions, to the Ist sec. of the
stet. 1 William IV., c. 41, which enacts 'That in all
cases where it shall be tra.cle to appear to any two or
mote justices of the peace of any county, riding or
division, having a separate commission of the pease, or
to any two or more justices of the peace of any liberty,
franchise, city, or town in England or Wale,, upon the
oath of any credible witness, that any tumult, riot, or
felony has taken place, or may be reasonably appre-
hended, in any parish, township, orp/ace situate within
the division or limits for which the said respective justices
usually act, and such justices shall be of opinion that
the ordinary officers appointed for preserving the
peace are not sufficient for the preservation of the
peace, and for the protection of the inhabitants
and the security of the property in any such
pariah, township, or place as aforesaid, then
, and In every such case such justices, or any
Iwo or more justices acting for the same division or Vmits,
are hereby authorised to nominate and appoint, by pre-
cept in writing, under their bands, 80 many as they shall
think fit of the householders or other persons (not legally
exempt from serving the office of constable) residing in 1
suoh parish, township, or place as aforesaid, or in the '
neighbourhood thereof, to act as special constables, for I
such time and tn such manner as to the said justices
respectively shall seem fit and necessary, for the preser-
vation of the public peace, and for the protection of the
inhabitants and the security of the property in such
parish, township, or place,' and to sec. 13, which pro-
vides for the payment of any constables so appointed.
It is, I think, beyond question that the sole object
of the statute quoted was the better preservation of the
public peace, when it was proved before us, by a deposi-
lion on oath, that on the sth of November last a
disturbance took place of a very serious character—that
stones were thrown, and threats of personal violence
were openly used towards the police who interfered to
prevent the burning of tar-barrels in the street, and
were obliged to seek shelter in the police station
in the Guildhall that the public lamps near
were extinguished, and almost all the windows of
the Guildhall wet° broken—that a tumultuous gathering
and procession of large numbers took place on the
evening of the 9th and again on the 14th, and that no
secret was made of the intention and deteimination of
some ill-disposed persons to repeat the same damonstra-
tion on Monday nights, weekly, until one of the police
constables' (whet, though complained of, was afterward,
found to have done no more than his duty on the sth of
November) was dismissed from the force, it can scarcely
be necessary to argue whether such an assemblage,
guilty f the overt sots which I have described,
amounted in law to a riot or tumult, or whether the
inhabit rits cf Dorchester would be ready to admit that
it was FO or n ; but with such a deposition from a
person wall able to speak of circumstances within, and
which al come to his own knowledge I venture to
think that it would have been impossible to resist the
inference that a further tumult and riot might be fairly
and reasonably apprehended • and Ido not doubt that
if no precaution had been taken, and a disturbance had
actually arisen, your lordship would have been ready to
denounce the apathy of the borough authorities, and
declare them unit to be further entrusted with the
duty of protecting the public peace. It would seem to
be your lordship's idea that the origin of this uneasiness
was a mere sth of November squabble, and a very
trifling matter in itself • and we all know how apt
persons are to think lightly of serious things when all
present danger or apprehension is passed away; but it
as equally well known that Serious results frequently
follow small beginnings, and that the excesses in
Bristol years ago, and at Belfast and Guilford in modern
times, were only the consequences of comparative trifles,
and that the local authorities have been exposed to
much animadversion for not suppressing them at the
outset.

We cannot but infer, from your lordship's opening
remarks, that you were well acquainted with the
evidence on which we acted, as well as with the fact
that we had strictly complied with the law, which
authorised the appointment of special constables, and
required official notification to be made to the Home
Office and the Lord Lieutenant; nor can we doubt that
If a similar deposition had been laid &fore any two
justices of the sounty they would inbtantly have adopted
the same course as we did for the protection of the well
disposed inhabitants, without considering whether it
would, or would not, be hard that the inhabitants of
Dorchester, or any other parish, should contribute to-
wards the expenses; and we desire most strongly to
deprecate the expression of such a dangerous doctrine
as that any part of the county should exclusively bear
the expenses occasioned by a public outbreak in opposi-
tion to the wholesome provisions of an Act of Parlia-
ment.

We cannot but regret that your lordship should
have remarked that we had failed in courtesy to the
county justices, in omitting to call them into counsel on
account of their having a concurrent jurisdiction within
the borough of Dorchester; but your lordship would
surely not desire it to be inferred that, in the exercise
of a duty and authority, &c., conferred by Her Majesty's
Commission, we failed in courtesy by such omission
towards those justices of the county who, though never
directly exercising their concurrent jurisdiction, still
had their processes constantly executed by the county
officers within the limits of this borough without pre-
vious remark or intimation of any kind; and may I not
ask whether there was not some failure of courtesy on
your lordship's part in making inquiries with a view to
Impeach our proceedings without any previous sugges-
tion of a mistake on our part in point of law, or any
intimation whatever on the subject.
It cannot, we think, be considered for a moment
that concurrent jurisdiction does not, as it ought, carry
with it concurrent duty and responsibility, and that it
was not equally the duty of the county justices resident
in this neighbourhood (with the knowledge they must
have had of what bad taken place on the sth and other
subsequent evenings in November), to unite their
efforte with ours for preserving the peace, but more
especially on the part of those justices who, though now
entitled to sit in Quarter Sessions, owe their first 1310.49-
berial authority to the Commission of the Peace for this
borough, and whose names still continue in such Qom.
mission.

It is unfortunately too apparent that the tendency
of the remarks made at the Sessions is to weaken our
authority, and convert the concurrent jurisdiction of
county justices in boroughs into a controlling one, and
create a restriction on borough magistrates, in regard
to any order on the County Treasurer; but it ought not,
and cannot be supposed that we have less regard for the
economical use of public money than our county
brethren, as we are all contributors to the county
purse, and some of us personally in a much larger pro-
portion than many of those to whom it is desired to
limit the control of the county expenditure.

With reference to your lordship's suggestion, that
by the counsel and authority of county justices aid
from the county police force might have been pro-
cured and all expense saved, it is with great nn-
willitigneoi that we venture most respectfully to dissent
from your declaration of the law on that subject.
We are advised that no individual justices have
any controlling or other authority over the police force,
and that the Chief Constable is responsible to the Court
of Quarter Sessions alone, and would not be bound to
obey, but, on the contrary, would refuse obedience to
any order of individual justices if made ; and we well
know that our own applioation to him for temporary
assistance on a recent public occasion was met by a re-
fusal. In thus drawing attention to the suggested
employment of the county police, we desire emphatically
to guard ourselves from any suspicion of a desire to
lessen the respect due to your lordship's expositions of
the law as chairman of the Quarter Sessions, and only to
express our conviction and regret that this part of the
subject bad not received your lordship's usual careful
consideration.
We were by no means ignorant of our authority to
appoint special constables in October yearly, under the
Municipal Corporations' Reform Act (5 and 6 Wm. IV.,
a. 76), or that the usefulness of constables so appointed
was seriously damaged, if not actually destroyed, by the
uncertain wording of that Act ; and I would venture to
refer your lordship to the case of Regina ro, Hultoo, 13
Queen's Bench Reports, p. 592, where the apparently
conflicting provisions of the 1 Wm. IV., c. 41, and 5
and 6 Win. IV., c. 76, as to the appointment and pay-
ment of special constables, are elaborately reconciled
and declared in a judgment by the late eminent judge,
StrJ. Patteson, and in which the jurisdiction exercised
by the justices of this borough, but now questioned by
your lordship, is affirmed.
I will only, in conclusion, repeat the regret of my
brother j,stices and myself at the necessity for my
troubling your lordship with this communication; and
as the remarks and refieetions on our interpretation of
the law and the exercise of our diaoretion were made in
a place where no ono was present to explain or question
them' and it was apparently desirtd that they should
reach us through the public press, and act as a warning
to us and other borough justices for the future, your
lordship will not be unprepared to hear that we shall
seek to have this explanation oommunicated to the
other metaben of the Court of Quarter Sessions and the
public through the same channel.
I have the honour to be, roy Lord,
Your lordship's bumble servant,
JOHN PETTY ALDRIDGE, Mayor.
The Right Honourable Lord Portman,
4 Bryanstone, Blandford.

Bryanstone, Blandford, January 18th, 1865.
SIII,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter dated 17th January. I am obliged to
state that you have not correctly understood the state-
ments I made as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and I
think that the view you have taken has led you to
attach a meaning to my remarks which is not what I
intended to convey.
I am quite aware of the power of the Chief Constable
of the county; but 1 may remind you that • "special
emergency" of tumult and riot is a very different case
from the employment to which you appear to refer in
your comment on my remarks.
I cannot doubt that if county justices had called
on the Chief Constable in a epochal emergency for aid,
he would have readily employed all the force at his
disposal.
The other parts of your statement, in fact, confirm,
as it seems to me, what I ventured to [ingest. I can
have no objection to any publication you may wish to
make, provided-.0 are so good as to add thereto • copy
of this letter. _

I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
_ _ PORTMAN.