The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-11 00:00:00

TILE CRIMEA.

In answer to Lord HOTEAM,
Mr. LAYARD gave notice that he should withdraw his motion
relating to the Crimea for the present.
POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
Sir G. GREY, in moving the second reading of this bill,
enforced the necessity for it by statements chewing the
ineflicency of the police in England and Wales, and the evils
arising therefrom. He remarked that, under the present
system, by which a forco was established in one county and
not in another, gangs of thieves were driven to the counties
that were unprovided with police, and there committed depre-
dations with impunity. With regard to the objection that
this bill interfered with local self-government, and was a
violation of the Municipal Reform Act, he remarked that he
interfered as little as possible with self-government, and added

. _
that ho was at a loss to understand how such an objectioi

could be made, while the prisons of boroughs and counties
were allowed to come under this ordeal. Manchester, Liver-

pool, Bristol, Birmingham, and other of the most populous
towns had fulfilled the obligations imposed upon them by the
Municipal Act to establish an efficient police force, and in
such places this measure would not make any alteration. But
there were other places, which had neglected to provide an
efficient force, and the Government considered it absolutely
necessary, having withdrawn the small military outposts
that were scattered over the country, for the reason that their
discipline became impaired by such duties and from the
exigency of the war, to introduce some measure to improve the
police force in such districts. The right honourable baronet
proceeded to quote a number of statistics, showing the
inadequacy and inefficiency of the police in several cities and
boroughs, one of which (Leeds) had acknowledged the
inefficiency of its police, and had petitioned unanimously in
favour of the bill before parliament. The right honourable
baronet enumerated certain amendments which he should be
prepared to make when the bill went into committee, including
the omission clauses of five and six, which give power to the
Secretary of State to make regulations for the police force, and
concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time.
Mr. CHAS. FORSTER moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. Ho grounded his opposition upon
the fact that the plan of centralisation was repugnant to the
feelings of the English people, and that complaints had been
made by several places that a blow at local self-government
was being struck, though they were not aware that they had
done anything to forfeit that right. He regretted that he was
compelled to oppose the measure, and suggested that the right
honourable baronet should withdraw it, and take advantage of
the Easter recess to prepare another bill, free from the objec-
tions which had been urged against this measure.
Captain SCOBELL seconded the amendment, and entered into
a detailed statement, to show that the police in boroughs and
cities was not so inefficient as Sir G. Grey had stated it
to be.
Sir H. TRACY approved of most of the provisions of the
measure, but objected to the ninth clause, which:provides that
the ratepayers shall make an allowance to a retiring chief
constable.
Sir G. H. PSCHELL believed that, notwithstanding the con-
cessions which had been made, t'le bill would not meet the
approbation of the town councils, and, for that reason, he
should vote against the second reading.
Mr. PACKS supported the measure, and remarked that,
after the amendments which the Government was willing to
make, he could not understand what objection the boroughs
could make to it.
Sir J. WALMSLEY supported the amendment. He thought
the boroughs were capable of acting for themselves in police
matters, and he objected to the interference of the Secretary
of State.
Mr. J. SMYTHE suggested that the measure under consi-
deration should be withdrawn, and oue applying only to coun-
ties substituted.
Mr. BgNTINCIt supported the bill.
Mr. W. J. Fox also recommended the withdrawal of the
measure, and the introduction of one relating exclusively to
counties. lie showed that though it was true that in many
boroughs there was an extremely small number of police, yet
to the credit of such boroughs it should be stated that no one
felt that their lives and property were insecure.
MR. HENLEY contended that no case had been made out
in support of the measure. Crime was disappearing in the
provinces and other places, and increased in the proportion of
convictions and charges in places where a rural police force
was efficient and useful in getting up the charges. The right
hon. gentleman proceeded to discuss clauses of the measure,
objecting to place any control over police in the hands of the
Secretary of State, the disadvantage of which had been
proved in the metropolitan police.
Sir Mr. HEATIICOTE generally approved of the measure, as
it regarded counties, and, with respect to the boroughs, re.
marked that the changes proposed were of so simple a nature,
that he could not understand the opposition to it. Respecting
the allowance out of the consolidated fund, lie agreed with the
proposition, but hoped the right lion. baronet would be induced
I to increase the amount.
Mr. J. B. SMITH, Mr. DEEDES, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. BARROW,
and Mr. COEBETT opposed; Mr. RICE, Mr. CAThair, and Mr.
WARNER supported the measure.
After some remarks from Mr. .L.T sprIELD,
Sir G. GREY replied. He stated that the amendments
which he proposed would in no way affect the principles of the
bill, and he could not, therefore, consent to withdraw the