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

Mr. WILLIAMS would support the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. lie considered
the condition of the finances as well as the condition of
the people, who paid taxes for the maintenance of
those officers, was not such as to warrant an increase
in the salaries of any person. Let the House look at
the condition of the working classes. Many could not
get employment, and those who did had to work 14 or
15 hours a day for Bs. or 9s. a week, and the House
had managed pretty well to throw the taxes on '
those articles that were consumed by the working classes.
He would oppose not only an increase in the salaries of
the Police Commissioners, but in all salaries. There
was no disposition towards economy on the part of the
present Government. He had scarcely seen an instance
of their proposing a reduction of salaries—( Hear)—but
whenever the question of salaries was brought before
the House by the Government, it was always accompa-
nied with a recommendation to increase them.—( Hear,
hear.) He thought it was time for the House to make
a stand against all such propositions, and he hoped his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Wakley) would divide the House
• upon this question.
Mr. ESTCOUR T had always been an admirer of
the police system. The labours of the Commissioners
were very great, and were likely to be increated by the
extension of the police district. He should support
the increase of salary.
Mr. BRISCOE thought the addition proposed was
not a greater remuneration than the Commissioners
were entitled to.

Mr. WAKLEY thought it was the duty of the
House to be just to the public before it was liberal to
individuals.—(Hear.) He was not surprised at the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), supporting
an increase in the salaries of the Commissioners, for he
believed that if the proposition bad been to allow them
2,0001. a year, the Right Hon. Baronet would have
supported it.—(A laugh.) He knew the House was
ready to vote away the money on every occasion, ex-
cept it was for the education of the people.—(Hear.)
His (Mr. Wakley's) object was to show to the people
what the character and conduct of the House on
these subjects was, and he was satisfied that the
more the people saw the disposition and feel-
ing of the House, the more general would be-
come the cry throughout the kingdom for a thorough
Reform. It was impossible for them to make their
property secure by paying the police well—they must
have the confidence of the people ; and if, at a time
when the labouring people were hardly remunerated for
their industry, the public money was voted away to in-
crease the salaries of officers, it was scarcely possible to
predict what would become of those great interests
that ought to be held together for the mainte-
nance of the integrity and power of the nation.
The present proposal was a specimen of what the
Government were prepared to do in the way of increas-
ing public salaries. Since he had been in the House
he never recollected hearing a proposition made for
decreasing the salaries of public officers, although on
multitudinous occasions had propositions been made for
increasing them. No proof was shown that the labours
of the Commissioners would be increased. But if the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had held out to
those gentlemen, when they first accepted their offices,
that there would at a future period be an increase, or
had made any engagement to that effect, then he (Mr.
W.) would at once withdraw his motion. But if they
accepted the office without any such engagement having
been made, then he did think, considering the state of
the finances of the country, this was not the time to
make an increase in salaries.

Sir IL PEEL felt bound to say that nothing of the
sort had ever been held out to the Commissioners by
him.

Mr. SANFORD observed that the present Govern-
ment had proposed a reduction in the salaries of all
the great Officers of State.

Air. HUME having been a member of the Police
Committee, would state that every Member in that
Committee had recommended an increase in the
salaries of the Commissioners. He concurred in that
recommendation, and was prepared to support the
vote. The present Bill would greatly augment their
duties, and the proposition now made, was only a fair
remuneration.

Mr. FIEL DEN would support the Honourable
Member for Finsbury: The House would recol-
lect that an inquiry was instituted by the House
on the motion of his late colleague (Mr. Cobbett) out
of which the police did not come very clear, for it. was
fully established that the man named Popay had been
employed as a spy. The system adopted by the Com-
missioners of sending spies throughout the country was
only calculated to create anarchy and confusion. The
police had been established for the purpose of coercing
the people, and he trusted the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury would persevere in dividing the House on the
proposition now made.

Mr. HAWES said that not one shred of the case
at first stated by the late Member for Oldham (Mr.
Cobbett) was supported before the Committee to which
the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down
had alluded. On the contrary, it had utterly failed.
The Report of that Committee stated that the conduct
of the Commissioners was highly honourable, and that
the men deserved the approbation of the public.
Mr. FIELDEN explained. He would rather trust
to the evidence on which the Report was founded than
to the Report. itself- -.--
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers were—
For the clattse .... 87

For the amendment 7
Majority in favour of the clause —Bo
Clause 50, which allowed coffee-houses in the neigh-
1-ourhood of public markets to b 3 opened at an earlier
hour than public-houses, was struck out, as was
clause 51.
On clause 53 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was extremely ob-
jectionable to the licensed victuallers, inasmuch as it
prohibited publicans supplying persons with liqnor under
14 years of age.
Mr. F. MAULS said the proposed amendments had
been assented to by the parties interested.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY had presented a petition
from the Chairman and Committee of the Licensed
Victuallers, in which they particularly called the atten-
tion of the House to this clause, and spoke of it as sub-
jecting the trade to vexatious proceedings by informers.
What they suggested was, that the word " apparently"
should be introduced, so that when a case came before
a Magistrate the question might be raised whether the
party might not have been led into an error.
Mr. AGLIONBY said, if the word " apparently"
was introduced, the word " knowingly" must be struck
out.

After some discussion,
Mr. T. DUNCO MBE said that he had the honour
of dining the other day with 3,000 licensed victuallers
—(Laughter)—who, one and all, requested him to en •
deavour to get the present clause expunged. Why not
go to twenty-cnc at once, instead of drawing the line of
culpability—between the ages fourteen and sixteen.
Mr. LAW hoped that all dubious words would be
left out of this clause, otherwise the most indecorous
scenes would take place at police-offices, on the ques'ion
arising whether a girl was 14 or 16 years old ; police
constables would be controverting each other's opinions
as to what age the girls' appearance suggested.
Mr. WAKLEY said the only way to be certain on
such a point was not to employ uninitiated persons. The
Magistrates must employ doctors.—(Laughter.)
Ultimately it was agreed that the responsibility of
publicans should extend to the age of 16.
Mr. DU NCOMBE now moved that the Com-
mittee divide as to whether the whole clause be ex.
punged or not.
Strangers, therefore, were ordered to withdraw.
Upon the division there were for the clause 29
Against it 2O
Majority
-9

Mr. FOX MAULE sirggested that clause 54, which
regulates the assembling of certain persons in public-
houses, would be a great improvement. It was copied
from the Liverpool Police Act.
Mr. EsTcoußT thought the clause not ne-
cessary.
Mr. lIAWES. thought the risk of losing their
licenses would keep the publicans under restriction
enough.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAW, in reply to Mr. F. Manic, said that
there was not an infringement upon the liberty of the
subject which might not be extracted from some local
Act.—(Laughter.)
Several Members opposed the clause altogether.
The Committee, therefore divided upon it—
' The numbers were for the clause
Against it
Majority... —if
Mr. HUME observed that he thought in the clause
prohibiting " unlawful" games, there should be some
definition of what were " unlawful" games. Was
cribbage unlawful.—(A laugh.)
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the word "common" gaming-
house would be omitted.
Lord HO W ICK said the object was to guard
against vexatious interference with private houses.
Mr. WAKLEY asked why, then, poor boys should
be liable, for betting or gaming, with a tossing of
halfpence, &c. in the streets, to a penalty of five shill-
ings. The police might, in fact, under this Bill, seize
persons betting at Tattersall's, or on a race course.
Mr. F. MAULE would inquire whether the Hnn.
Member were not aware, how prejudicial bad habits
proved, and that boys who began with tossing half-
pence on a tomb-stone, generally ended badly?—(Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said these acts
were now unlawful.
Mr. CLAY doubted if we were not becoming rather
pharisaical in our legislation, and whether it was not
straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to subject
a poor man to a penalty of five shillings for tossing up,
after a hard day's work, who shall pay for a pint of beer.
—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree to the clause, un-
less it were limited to gaming with any instrument or
table, &c.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the clause
wceld then be uselass, for it would only be the law as
it now steed.
1 Colonel WOOD said it would be ridiculous that a