The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-22 00:00:00

cent meetings that the Home Secretary would be made to
pay a heavy Tensity for having introduced the bill, and that
it would be better for tho fame of an hon. and gallant mem-
ber if he had died thirty years ago. (Laughter.) He could
only say for himself that he was not intimidated by the
threats of the hon. member for Stafford at the next election,
even though he should bring his men in armo it with him.
Mr. BOVILL said the sentiments expressed by the noble
lord presented a strong contrast to the course pursued by
her Majesty's Government; for if ever there was a time
when generosity should be shown to the City of London, it
was the present. The bill would be met with the strongest
resistance, and he only hoped the right hon. baronet would
act upon the suggi stion he had thrown out that he would
not propose the second reading for a long time, and that he
would save save the hon. member for the City the necessity
of moving that the bill be read a second time that day six
months by postponing the second reading for six
months. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) There were many
persons who did not approve of having the Metro-
politan police under the authority of a Minister of
the Crown; and the right hon. gentleman who introduced
this measure was unable to state one ordinary instance in
which the City police had failed in their duty. The 7th of
March was an exceptional occasion, and it was not just in
the Government, who were largely responsible for the ar-
rangements which took place, to fix the whole blame upon
the corporation. The best prpof that the bill was not de-
sired by the people of the metropolis was that not a single
petition in its favour was presented. (Hear, hear.) If this
bat passed into a law, there were nothing to prevent the
Home Secretary from coming down next session with a bill
for appointing paid magistrates, and superseding the Lord
Mayor and aldermen. The hon. and learned gentlemen en-
tered at some length into a variety of arguments to prove
the efficiency of the City police; the confidence that is re-
posed in them by the owners of immense property ; the great
tact and ingenuity exhibited by them in pursuing fraudulent
bankrupts and in apprehending runaway debtors, and con-
cluded by saying he would reserve further opposition until
a future stage. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HIBBERT oppposed the bill as being another at-
tempt at centralisation. He thought it would be better if
some arrangement were made, giving the Secretary of State
power, without the requisition of the Lord Mayor, to send
metropolitan police into the City in cases of emergency.

Mr. AYRTON said he felt sure the house had not failed
to observe the wide difference there was between the corpo-
ration of London and the City. They were two things, I,er-
fectly distinct from one another. The hon. member for the
City of London had expressed an opinion on the question
diferent from that expressed by members of the corporation
who did not represent the City, and that, he said, was a re-
markable index of the true character of the question, which
he should be able more fully to explain when the question
had to be further debated. He felt certain that when it
came on for more serious discussion practical considera-
tions would prevail over that array of the reminiscences of
the past in which the corporation had indulged. (Hear.)
He was a strenuous supporter of local self-government and
greatly opposed to centralisation ; and if he thought that
this bill contemplated the semblance of an invasion of that
principle, he would have opposed it at that stage. (Hear,
hear.) After due consideration and deliberation he had
come to the conclusion that his views with reference to a
general administration of the affairs of the metropolis by
one bocy were wrong and impracticable; but he believed it
was desirable and expedient that there should be but one
police administration. He criticised and condemned the
conduct of the corporationon questions of great importance,
and said that the proposed alteration was essentially of a
local character, and had nothing in common with other cor-
porations, districts, and police jurisdictions—(hear)—and
the only way in which he could account for the course pur-
sued by the City in reference to this bill was that they could
practise on small corporate towns delusions which had no
foundation in fact. (Hear, hear.) The more the question
bwas a
pdpi sr ce ue
isasteedd,
by
hye t mh
eo r
ien
hh ea b t
aans
tssu roet i ttsh re e
ma l
etmr
oepr
oi tlsi s ()anal
dd
that they would fully understand that whatever police force
was good enough for them was good enough for those who
live in the City of London, (Hear, hear.) The corporation
of London would be acting more in accordance with their
charter, and in support of the liberty of the subject, if they
ceased their objections to these useful and necessary alters..
tions, and assisted hon. members to carry them into effect.
Sir H. STRACEY considered that the Home Secretary
was the person who was really responsible for the state of
the City on the 7th March. The proposed change, he con-
sidered, would place too much power in the hands of the
Commissioner of Police, and make a kind of Fouche of him.
(Hear, hear.) He objected to the proposed interference
with the rights and privileges of the corporation, and he
should oppose the bill.
Mr. Sergeant PIGOTT differed from the opinion that
this bill would at all interfere with the local self-government
of corporations. It was a bill to place under one manage-
ment the police of one town. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. BRUCE said it was a most inopportune moment
for bringing in this bill. He could not see how the house
could pass such a measure without a most unpleasant feel-
ing springing up between the City and the Royal family.
Sir J. SHELLEY would have much more confidence in
the devotion of the corporation of the City of London to the
principle of local self-government if, upon past occasions
when opportunity offered for the principle being extended
to other divisions of the metropolis, the corporation had
come forward to advocate such extension—but they had
never done anything of the kind. As soon as their own
privileges were secured, they were silent with respect to
those of others. (Hear.) Putting aside the question of
patronage—and every one knew that it lay at the bottom
of the whole controversy—no one would be found contend-
ing that, as far as the inefficiency of the police was con-
cerned, that efficiency could not be much promoted by a
union of the two forces under one head, What they ought
to have was one great municipality for the whole of Lon-
don ; and then, of course, there would follow, as the natural
consequences, one police for the metropolis at large.
(Hear,
.hear.)
Sir G. GREY, in reply, declared that no one could be
more sensible than he was of the exceeding loyalty of the
demonstration made by the City of London, on the occa-
sion of the entry of the Prince and Princess of Wales. It
had been his gratifying duty to express to the Lord Mayor,
on the part of her Majesty, the deep sense which her Ma-
jesty entertained of the loyalty displayed on the occasion.
But one could not help seeing that, out of respect for
such conduct on the part of the corporation, the Govern•
meat ought not to be debarred from the introduction of a
measure which was demanded by public convenience. He
had not stated that this bill was proposed without any
me nbauyot
must
tet
the
oaebwydn
deet
sn:
decorations
rt
aetrtproposed
oelnilikely
oeolry
mainly or exclusively in consequence of those events.
-f
reference to the events of March 7th. What he
had said was that it had
eer]:
pAt
oonrbdaet
attractedo inr hourge ghat ritdno
tthooattvhheeo
known sce
te
City,
,enatt seh,awht
lO
alidlldt London -b
r be
frol dr
eg ep
raeneda uet li so enwa
rhye r a
measures
e s b y the
ought civic t
o have procession,been
taken beforehand to guard against such occurrences as
actually took place. Indeed, he might remind the Lord
Mayor that, from the beginning to the end of the commu-
nications between them, it was clearly understood that her
Mejesty's sanction was also given to the proposed arrange-
ments on the condition that the most effectual means should
be taken by the City authorities for the preservation of
order. Assurances were given that such means would be
taken, but he was sorry to say that they were not fulfilled.
What he found fault with was that there was no directing
head, no controlling authority, to supervise the arrange-
ments in the City on that great occasion, and to produce
unity and harmony of action. There were no doubt great
crowds in the City; but, as every one knew, there were
great crowds along the whole line of the procession, to the
westward of Temple-bar, and yet there the most complete
order was kept, owing to the admirable arrangements of
Sir Richard Mayne. He felt confident if the City police
had likewise been under the control of Sir Richard Mayne,
that equal order would have been kept to the eastward of
Temple-bar. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. BRUCE obtained leave to introduce a bill to con-
firm certain provisional orders under the Land Drainage
Act (1861).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. BRUCE also obtained leave to introduce a bill to
confirm certain provisional orders under the Local Govern-
ment Act (1858),

POOR REMOVAL (IRELAND).
Sir 11. BRUCE obtained leave to introduce a bill on the
subject of the removal of destitute persons from England
and Scotland to Ireland.

The three last. mentioned bills were introduced and read
a first time.
The house then adjourned at a quarter to 11 o'clock.

THE PRISON MINISTERS BILL.--The division
list shows a curious mixture of parties. Amongst
those who voted for the measure were the following Conser-
vatives :—Mr. Crawahay Bailey, Mr. Beecroft, Mr. Bram-
ston, Mr. Baillie:Cochrane, Mr. Disraeli, Colonel Dunne,
the Hon. A. Egerton, Sir James Fergusson, Sir J. Hay,
Mr. Heygate, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. F. Knight, Lord H.
Lennox, Mr. H. Liddell, Mr. Longfield, Mr. Lygon, Mr.
Main waring, Lord John Manners, Mr. Morritt, Sir S.
Nor hcote, Sir J. Pakington, Colonel Patten, Mr. Potts,
Mr. Stirling, and Sir H. Willoughby. On the other hand,
several well known Liberal members voted against the bill,
including Mr. Angerstein, Mr. Butler, Mr. Caird, Mr. E.
Crawfurd, Viscount Enfield, Mr. IV, Ewart, Mr. Ewing,
Mr. Hanbury, the Hon. A. Kinnaird, Mr. Langton, Mr.
1...?3, Mr. W. Martin, Mr. W. Mi ler, Mr. Onslow, Sergeant
Pigo't, Sir J. Shelley, Colonel Sykes, Mr. Tite, Mr. James
White, Mr, W. Williams, Mr. Wyld, &c. While sturdy
Nonconformists like Mr. Edward Baines and Mr. Hadfield
voted for the measure, equally active members of the dis-
senting body, like Mr. J. R. Mills and Sir Morton Peto,
voted against it. As a rule, Scotch members were in the
Opposition. Mr. Ellice, sen., who represents Coventry,
voted for the bill; but Mr. Ellice, jun., who represents St.
Andrew's, voted against it. Mr. J. C. Ewart, who repre-
sents Liverpool, was amongst the "Ayes," while Mr.
William Ewart, who sits for Dumfries, was on the other
side. Mr. Whiteside's name does not appear in the divi-
sion list, and only a very few members of the Irish Conser-
vative party followed Mr. Disraeli.