The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1839.

in certain parts of the town, and that they had endea-
voured to induce persons employed in the colleries
in the neighbourhood to come in with arms, but the
police had entirely dispersed them.
The Metropolitan Police Bill was then re-committed.
On the report of a money clause being brought up,
Mr. HUME said he objected to these payments
being made out of the Consolidated Fund, as it removed
all the constitutional checks. What he wished was
that the payment should be made annually by the
House, and that the House should have the oppor-
tunity of canvassing and discussing the vote. The
transactions at Birmingham showed that they were
wrong, and the sooner they retraced, their steps the
better. In former times the Secretary of State
directed the military to aid the civil power in any
place where such aid was wanted. But this was a
new power, serving the purposes of the military. Under
these circumstances it was but fair and reasonable that
that House should have an opportunity of annually
canvassing the vote for their payment. It never was
contemplated that they should be sent scouring through
the country—not one word was said about that while
the Bill was going through the House for the formation
of the force. He saw no difference between a red coat
and a blue one. He therefore moved that the 13th
clause be omitted.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the force was not one ex-
tending into the country, except upon particular occasions,
whether voted in the supplies or not, the country had
a right to expect that the aid of the civil force should
on all occasions, when it was required, be available.
And he (Lord J. Russell) was much better satisfied with
the application of the metropolitan police force, thaii
with the employment of that force which, twenty years
ago, was used with much more lamentable effect at
Manchester.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said his objection was to the allowing
a force to be at the disposal of the Crown, without the
knowledge and consent of Parliament. It was equiva-
lent to that. Certainly the civil force should be on all
occasions tried to the utmost extent before the military
were called in. With regard to the Birmingham affair,
he could not express an opinion till the truth had been
more satisfactorily arrived at.
Mr. HAWES said his Hon. Friend was mistaken in
his facts. The greater portion of the expense of the
metropolitan police fell on the rates ; and the effect of
rejecting this clause would only be, that the whole ex-
pense would be thrown on the Metropolitan districts.
His Hon. Friend, to attain his object—that of placing
the police force under the control of the House, just as
the army was, by estimates regularly voted in Com-
mittee—must take another course.
Mr. FOX MAU LE said both Hon. Members were
mistaken.
Mr. HUME said if the House supported him in re-
fusing this additional sum he should then bring in a Bill
on the subject.
Mr. BROTHERTON said if the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny divided the House on the question he
should divide with him. He did not see the justice of
the country being taxed for the support of the metro-
politan police. He agreed with the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny, that in cases of disturbances it was better to
employ the police than the military.
Captain WOOD thought the amount should be de-
frayed by an annual vote, in order that the subject
might constantly be brought before the House.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN supported the amendment. He
participated in the jealousy with which a police force,
entirely dependent upon a Secretary of State, should be
regarded,
Mr. E WART believed the Hoe. Gentleman's mo-
tion-to be, in principle, whether the police force should
he paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or by a vote of
Parliament. In his opinion, the latter would be much
more constitutional, and it would render them much
more efficient to identify them with the people.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there.appeared—
For the clause
Against it 25
Majority in favour of the clause —B2
Mr. WILLIAMS rose to object to clause 27, but
gave way to
Mr. WAKLEY, who wished to know how the
interests of certain of the officers of the police
offices would be affected by clauses 20 and 21 of this
Bill. They were of opinion that, by those clauses they
would be excluded from the courts of the public offices—
they had no wish to throw any obstruction in the way
of the Bill, but they wished to be informed how they
would be affected, and if the Bill were destructive to
their interest, they trusted the House would award them
some compensation.
Mr. FOX MAULE was of opinion that their
interests would not be at all affected by the clause in
question.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to clause 27, imposing
a penalty of one month's imprisonment on a person as-
saulting the police in the execution of their duty, or in-
citing others to do so. He objected to the clause,
seeing the character in which the police had acted.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) They were taken amongst the
people without any intimation, and commenced an at-
tack. The people, knowing nothing of them, resisted.
Now under this Bill, a person raising his arm merely
to defend himself from a blow would be liable to
imprisonment ; and could it be supposed that the
Magistrates at Birmingham under the. present eircusn-
seaeaas.aeame;ecaient, would not Convict in such a case ?'
His objection, however, rested principally on the abuse
which might arise out of the clause, and from his feel-
ing apprehensive that the police force might frequently
be called upon to act at a distance. He should, there-
fore, move the rejection of the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not agree to argue
every clause of the Bill over again.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUN COMBE said it was understood the
clauses were to be gone through again. It was of no
use goinginto Committee unless they went through them.
It was a new power, for it was giving the power to one
Justice to fine a person .51. with the power of imprison-
ment. The law now is that he shall he taken before
two Magistrates, but without the power of imprisonment.
Mr. F. MAULE said he had said that clause 67
should be discussed again, but he had never consented
to discuss the whole of the clauses.
Colonel SIBTHORP certainly understood that t

understanding was as stated by the Hon. Gentleman.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could assure
Hon. Gentlemen that the Bill wouid only have effect in
the metropolis and no where else.
Mr. HARVEY thought it was a very good clause,
because it gave the Magistrate a discretionary power
of imprisonment, and so brought down the rich man to
the level of the poor one.
Mr. WILLIAMS contended that the clause applied-
to the police who were sent to Birmingham as well as
to those in town.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could assure him
it did not. The police who went to Birmingham went
merely as special constables.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 28 was postponed.
On clause 29 being proposed,
WAKLEY objected to it on the ground that he
did not think that was a proper time to make any addi-
tion to the salaries of the Commissioners. The Right
Hon. Baronet thought 8001. was a sufficient salary for
them at a time when all their labours must have been
severe, at the time when three months' labour must have
been more severe than one year's now. He would
divide the House if he stood alone.
Mr. O'CONNELL would certainly divide against
him—there was no better principle than to pay ex-
tremely well when you are served extremely well.
Sir R. PEEL having been so pointedly appealed to
would state that he most cordially approved of the propo-
sition of the Government. Rethought it no reproach to an
economical Government -chat they made suitable rewards
for meritorious services. When he brought forward the
Bill establishing the force, he had not that support
which he might have had, had it not been so soon after
the Catholic Relief Bill was passed, and at the time he
did not know whether it might succeed: Ho then
stated that it was an experiment, and he hoped that
some future Government, whether he belonged to it or
not, would increase the salaries, for he thought them too
low, and he was obliged to the Government for their
proposition. The increase had emanated entirely from
the House. During the whole of the time he had connec-
tion with them, they never once hinted that they wished
for any increase.
Sir R. INGLIS had opposed the formation of the
force, but subsequent experience had converted him,
and he would support the motion,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was quite sure that there
could be but one opinion in the House with respect to
the manner in which the Commissioners had performed
their duty, and he could bear testimony to the fact that
ever since he had held the office of Secretary for the
Home Department they had not once adverted to any
increase of their salaries.
Colonel SIBTHORP had also opposed the forma-
tion of the force, but he was now perfectly satisfied
with it. As the Hon. Member for Finsbury could not
agree in the raising of the salaries from 8001. to 1,2001.
he was afraid he would not support him (Colonel Sib-
thorp) in the proposition he felt it his duty to make.
Many of the Superintendents were taken to the large
towns in the country, where they obtained much larger
salaries, even to more than double. The Superinten-
dents were not paid at all equal to clerks in the civil
departments. They received only 2001., the Inspec-
tors 1001. only. He Proposed to make the Superin-
tendent's salary
2501.,. the Inspector's 150/. ; and to
raise the pay of a Serpent from 225. 6d. to 235. 6d. ;
and to give the man 20s. in place of 195., as a stimu-
lus to the whole.
Mr. FOX MAULE, in reply to the Gallant Colonel,
said he did not think the pay which the police at pre-
sent received was too low, but as any increase in the
salaries would fall on the rate-payers, and as the rate-
payers had not show n any desire to increase the pay of
the police, he thought the House should not give any
countenance to the proposition.
Mr. PRYME said they ought to put the police
above the temptation of a bribe. The police underwent
great fatigue—they were often worn out and exhausted,
and he did not think their present pay was an adequate
remuneration.