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

BURIAL OF SIR J. OUTRAM.

Mr. P. WYNDHAM asked the Secretary of State for
India if it was true that the Indian Government intended
to defray the expenses of Sir James Outram's funeral ; and
if the sergeants of the 78th Highlanders, who volunteered
to attend at their own cost from Folkestone, and did so,
would not have their expenses allowed to them by the Go-
vernment ?
Sir C. WOOD replied that it was only a fitting tribute
to the memory of Sir James Outram, one of the bravest and
most gallant officers connected with any of the public ser-
-vices, that the cost of his funeral should be defrayed out
of the public purse. (Hear, hear.) The attendance of the
sergeants of the 78th Highlanders was perfectly
voluntary and spontaneous ; they desired to testify
-their respect to their late commander by being
permitted to carry him to the grave, and
did so at their own expense ; but the Government consi-
dered that they should be reimbursed for their outlay, and
it had been refunded to them. (Hear.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES IN CATTLE AND
SHEEP.

Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Vice-President of the Privy
Canncil whether he had any objection to lay upon the table
of the house the report of the Commissioner sent by Go-
vernment in the course of last autumn to the Continent,
to inquire into the existence of sheep and cattle contagious
or infectious diseases in foreign countries, and into the
liability of their introduction into this country ?
Mr. BRUCE replied that the report, which was a very
ion one, had been delivered to his department, and was
now under its consideration. It would be shortly printed
to the house in the form of an appendix to the report of
'the medical officers.
THE AMNESTY IN POLAND.

Mr. DENMAN asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
whether her Majesty's Government had received any in-
form ation as to whether the amnesty offered by the Em-
peror of Russia to those engaged in the Polish insurrection
W 843 inieuded to suspend the execution of political prisoners
taken since the commencement of those proceedings of the
the Ru.ssian authorities which led to the insurrection ?

Lord PALMERSTON replied that it was now well
known tilta the Russian Government had issued a procla-
mation granting an amnesty. There were some variations
in the proclamation issued at St. Petersburg, and that
issued at War.itiw. As yet the Government had received
no very accurate information as to the correct interpreta-
tion. There were different interpretations as to the
exact purport of the proclamation—one asserting
to be in the comprehensive sense mentioned by his
honourable and learned friend ; the other that its
intentions were rather restricted. All he could say
was that he hoped the larger interpretation was the just
one. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible not to feel that the
Russian Government entertained the sense that its troops in
Poland had unfortunately committed acts of ferocious vio-
ler ce, and that there was great reason for the enaction of
acts of forbearance and mercy in order to set them right
wi h the public. (Hear, hear.)

- -
CHIEF MINISTERS OF STATE IN THE HOUSE
OF LORDS.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH desired to ask the noble lord (Lord
Palmerston), whether he thought it desirable, with a view
to 'he efficiency of the public service, and respectful to the
-Reuse of Commons, that the chiefs of three departments e
namely, the Secretary at War, the Chief Secretary f the
Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,slaculd be concentrated in the House of Lords, and this
house left to the Tinder-Secretaries of the three Departa.
tut ntsf (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON replied that it had been his en-
(fleavour to make the beet arrangement he could for
the public service, combining as many benefits
w:th as few objections as Possible. (Hear, hear.)
It would be desirable, 'no doubt, to have the whole of the
Secretaries of State in the House of Commons; but all he
could say was, that the house would not suffer any incon-
ven!ence in consequence of the arrangements recently made
in regsrd to full explanations being offered to the house in
all wafters relating to the public service. (Hear, hear.)
ADMIRAL WILKES.

Mr. ROEBUCK desired to ask the noble lord, the First
Lord of the• Treasury, a question—but if inconvenient he
would repeat it on Thursday—whether the Government
had determined upon what line of conduct it would be proper
to pursue with regard to Admiral Wilkes—(hear, hear)—
and whether the noble lord had any objection to state the
nature of the determination of the Government ?

Lord PALMERSTON—I would rather take the ques-
tion as a notice for a future day. (Laughter.)
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND RE VENUE
OFFICE, &c.

Mr. A. SMITH then rose to move for a select committee
to inquire into the Office of Woods, Forests, and and Re-
venues, and the Office of Works and Public Buildings, and
the operation of the Act 14 and 15 Tic. c. 42, by which
the were constituted as two separate departments. Dur-
ing the past year there had been a saving of one million on
efich of the departments for war and ,the navy ; but he re-
gretted to find there had been no saving effected in the es-
timates for the civil service, with regard to which there
was more complaint than in any other department of the
&Foe. The hon. ;entleman then referred to the Hon. Mr.
Gore's report of the income and expenditure, which he
(`lr. Smith) urged was a too favourable estimate of the
r
:emir and expenditure of this department. The hon.
man concluded by moving the appointment of a se-
lect e,,,,Thittee
'
M"
on
o PRIM •
iconditi f %s a he was quite ready to admit that the
in 'ought from time to Crowntime lands was a fair subject to be
AhOUse, both because thinle under the consideration of the
Y constituted a considerable source

of revenue, and because there was a large number of per-
sons whose connection with those lands made them directly
interested in the prudent management of the e. Those
lands formed the subject of a compact with the Drown, who,
in return for the civil list, had made over to the public the
net revenue of the property, after paying the cost of their
management, The system under which the lands were
administered was one strictly defined by law. This pro-
petty had been always admininistered by commissioners
appointed for that purpose. The union of Woods and
Works had proved upon experiment to be a failure, and
was abandoned in the year 1851, when the two offices
were separated. The act for effecting this separation
became law in 1851, and the Prime Minister of
the day, when introducing the measnre, stated that
it was intended to remedy certain evils which had
arisen under the joint system. The evils were chiefly
these ; that large and expensive public works were under-
taken, which cost more than was convenient to propose
for the sanction of Parliament, and the requisite funds had
to be provided by casting the cost upon the Crown lands,
thereby having the effect of lessening the revenue de-
rived from them, and of keeping the particulars from the
public view. The best proof that could be given of the
management of those lands under the new system was
the sustained and progressive value of them ; for it appeared
that they had increased from £301,000 in 1851 to £370,000
in 1862. The consolidation of the Crown property had been
carried out to the advantage of the Crown by the difference
between £ll,OOO and £27,000 annually. The expenditure
had not increased, for the gross receipts had increased pari
passu with the expenditure. He examined the different
large items of expenditure, which he said were outlays bene-
ficial to the property. If this were private property, instead
of spending the annual income, as was now the case, the
owner would rather borrow money and charge the estate
with an annuity for the advance; but inasmuch as the civil
list and Crown lands would always be arranged on the bases
on which they now stand, it was a matter of indifference
whether the advances were from the revenue of the country
or whether they used the Crown property, as in either case
they would receive a fair interest on the outlay. He referred
to the acreage of the Crown lands, part of which had been
enclosed and planted with oaks, in consequence of the fears
that were entertained some time since that there would be a
scarcity of timber for the Royal Navy, and was now a source
of profit over expenditure. He defended the expenditure of
the office, and in conclusion urged that a committee of in-
quiry was unnecessary, and that it was undesirable to re-
unite the Office of Woods and Forests with the Office of
Works. Full and satisfactory accounts of the departments
were annually presented to Parliament.
_ _

Mr. CAIRD said that, having perused Mr. Gore's report,
he was of opinion that a great improvement had taken place
in the improvement of the Crown estates, highly satisfac-
tory to the public. It was impossible to expect that the
Crown lands could be as beneficially managed as private
property.
The motion was then negatived without a division,
THE AMALGAMATION OF THE CITY AND THE
METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Sir G. GREY rose to ask leave to introduce a bill for
the amalgamation of the City of London and the Metro-
politan police. The motion was by no means a new one,
nor was it one which ought to be made without a great deal
of consideration ; but the fact was that both commissions
and committees had frequently reported on the subject, and
with a remarkable unanimity of opinion; and no doubt that
unanimity of opinion originated in the very limited area
over which the corporation of the City of London exercised
jurisdiction, when the area of that jurisdiction was put in
comparison with the boundaries of the metropolis at large.
And he was anxious to say, at the outset, that his present
proposal was not founded mainly upon the proceedings of
the 7th of March last. It was not a penal measure, directed
against the City of London on account of any misconduct
imputed to them upon that occasion; although the events
of that day showed, undoubtedly, a great want of order,
and great mismanagement, as well as a very inadequate
appreciation on the part of the City authorities of the emer-
gency that was likely to arise. They showed, moreover,
an over confidence on the part of the corporation in their
own means of maintaining order, and that the conclusions
of the commissions and the committees to which he had just
adverted were not founded upon a merely imaginary theory.
And having before him the conclusions of those commis-
sions and committees, he must say that if the motion of the
hon. and gallant member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans)
had been brought forward, it would have been impossible
for him to have dissented from it. Under those circum-
stances, the best course for the Government to take was to
deal at once with the subject by bill, rather than await the
decision of the house upon an abstract resolution. The dif-
ference between the corporation of the City of London and
other corporations were very clearly pointed out by the com-
missioners of 1853, and none of the commissioners, he
might remark, were men likely to disregard popular rights.
At the same time it was due to the City of London that he
should call attention to the opinion of the commissioners—
namely, that, while they drew a comparison between the
corporation of the City of London and other corporations
before the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, they
thought that the great defect inherent in those other cor-
porations—namely of power and authority being vested ex•
-
elusively in a few—did not exist in the corporation of the
City of London, which had been distinguished at all times
by the predominance of the popular element. (Hear, hear.)
For that no doubt the corporation of London was entitled to
credit. Before the passing of the Municipal Corporation
Act, the corporations of Liverpool, Bristol, and several other
ancient corporations, were to a certain extent similarly cir-
cumstanced as the corporation of London, in regard of the
comparatively limited area of their respective towns, over
which they exercised jurisdiction. However, by the Muni-
cipal Corporation Act, a change was effected in their boun-
daries, although none was brought about in those of the
City of London. Now, it appeared from returns before the
Corporation Commission of 1853 that at that date the popu-
lation of the City of London was 125,158 ; while, by the
last census, it appeared that the population had diminished
to 112,063. On the other hand, the population of the sur-
rounding districts within the control of the metropolitan
police was not less than 3,110,654; and while the area of
the City was between 11 and 11 square miles, that of the
surrounding districts under the metropolitan police was 700
square miles. And here he might observe that it was quite
impossible that the proposals applicable to the City of Lon-
don could be applied with any show of reason to other cor-
porations. The corporation of London was once the corpo-
ration of the whole metropolis ; but now-a-days the area of
the metropolis had far outgrown the limits of the City, so
that the corporation of London was simply an anomaly.
The City was not included in the Police Bill introduced by
Sir Robert Peel in 1829, because it was admitted that the
watchmen of the City were more efficient than the watch-
men outside its walls ; while, at the same time, it was de-
clared that the bill of 1829 was only an experiment. But
the commission of 1837 having raised the question how far
an amalgamation of the City and Metropolitan police was
desirable, in the following year a committee of that house,
which included Sir R. Peel and Mr. Hume, was appointed
to investigate the subject, and the result of their delibera-
tions was a decided and a unanimous report in favour of
amalgamation. That was in 1838, up to which time no step
had been taken for the improvement of the City police ; but,
after the report of the commissioners of 1838, a bill was in-
troduced for the establishment of the City police on the
same footing as the Metropolitan. The bill for the improve-.
ment of the police force had been brought in by Lord John
Russell, and contained 19 special clauses for the separation
of the City police; but ultimately the bill was passed with
those 10 clauses struck out. On the day, however, on which
the bill received the Royal assent, another bill embodying
those 10 clauses had been carried. Then came the City
commission of 1854. The police question was expressly re-
ferred to that commission, and they examined a large num-
ber of official and other important witnesses, amongst whom
was the late able Commissioner of the City Police, Mr.
Daniel Whittle Harvey. The commissioners in their report
came to the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence
was greatly in favour of the two forces not being kept sepa-
rate. These inquiries resulted in the same opinion being
expressed, and the weight of authority in favour of a mea-
sure proposed to that house had seldom, if ever, been ex-
ceeded. Mr. Harvey's evidence, though given under a na-
tural restraint,went throughout to' show the inconvenience,
if not the absurdity, of the existing system. It appeared
that the distinctions were so curiously made,that sometimes
one side of a street would be in the City jurisdiction and
the other side in the Metropolitan, and in one case a
certain spot was in one jurisdiction at high water, and
in the other at low water. Those, however, were (
but minor inconveniences. He was bound to say,
that since the establishment of the City police the two
bodies had worked together on a perfectly good un-
derstanding. That harmony,.howetvheer,
head commissioners.
been
largely owing to judicious choice of h
That harmony might not always prevail,selec-
tionseaallycoglohosdionoe
might not always be made, and should I
cur it would be a very serious matter. (Rear.) th ebe
City,
the number of the men was so small, that they could not
concentrated on a particular spot without leaving other
points unprotected. That remark did not apply
tothe
Metropolitan force. On the 7th of March the City police
were almost lost in the crowds of people, and many persons
in
the City never saw a policeman the whole day. In the
Metropolitan Police Act there was power to send the police
into the City of London, if the Lord Mayor so requested ;
but if—as on the 7th of March—no such request were made,
then the Metropolitan police could not enter the City. He
meant no reflection on the Lord Mayor on that account, It
only went to show that a man who held office merely for a
year was not so likely to understand what ought to be done
on such an occasion as one of longer experience. He might
be asked, "Why was that bill brought in now ?" His answer
was that the natural result of the evidence was that an ami-
cable union of the two forces was desirable. With regard to
personal communication with the City officials, he had
always been entertained in the best and most courteous man-
ner, and he trusted the City gentlemen, when they visited
him, had left with a similar impression. Still, whenever
the Government had brought forward any measure calcu-
lated in the least degree to touch their privileges, their com-
bined power of resistance was something remarkable.
(Hear and laughter.) It was a very singular fact that a body
so wealthy and hospitable as the corporation of London
should so steadily oppose a measure of improvement.
There were now in the house four members of Parliament
for the City, besides which there were the Lord Mayor

and several aldermen and other civic functionaries who
sat for other places. It was satisfactory, therefore,
to know that there would be a compact body to pro-
tect the privileges of the citizens, (Hear, hear.) To
show what sort of opposition the City had been accustomed
to bring to bear, he need only refer the house to the evidence
of Mr. Rogers, given before the commission he had alluded
to. That gentleman stated that when Lord Melbourne in-

troduced the bill of 1838, the City petitioned the house, but
the Minister of the day was silent. They then addressed the
Throne, but though they received a gracious answer, they
knew well it meant nothing. They then planted their town
clerk in Palace-yard, and instructed him to communicate
and, if possible, to co-operate with every corporation in the
kingdom, with a view to defeat the measure. That sort of
tactics, however, might be repeated too often and persevered
in too long. All he should ask of the house was whether
they thought it for the safety and welfare of the metropolis
that the present state of things should continue ? With one
exception, the corporation had successfully resisted every
attempt at reform or improvement. That exception was the
rc moval of Smithfield Market, to which, nevertheless, there
had been great opposition. Much as the munificence and
hospitality of the City of London were to be admired. he
thought the events of last March clearly showed that some
change was necessary, and under those circumstances he
had felt it his duty to bring in the bill. It had first occurred
to him that the required object might be attained by the
Secretary of State having power given him to send the
police into the City; but on reflection it seemed that colli-
sions of authority might occur, which would be very incon-
venient. He therefore submitted the bill in its present form,
and would not name a very early day for the second read-
ing, so that it might be well and carefully considered.
Mr. CRAWFORD said it was a very unusual thing to
oppose the introduction of a bill, especially when brought
in by a member of the Government. He would be pre-

pared to discuss the general principle of the bill on the
motion for the second reading, when he would feel it his
duty to move that it be read a second time on that day six
months. Ho weuld do no more on the present occasion
than express a hope that they would,have a full discussion,
and he had no fear of the result.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY referred to the statement of the
Home Secretary, and asked how it came to pass, if the re-
ports quoted by the right hon. gentleman had been hostile
to the introduction of a police force for the City, that after
the production of such reports the police force should be
established in the City as it now existed ? That force had
been established in 1839, and he thought it was the best
answer which could be given to the reports brought forward
by the right hon. gentleman as the groundwork of his bill.
He could not help expressing great surprise that, after 24
years, the authorities of the City of London should be put
on the defensive with respect to the internal gov2rnment of
their city. He was desirous of knowing the grounds upon
which municipal rights were to be taken from the City, and
he was also desirous of putting persons upon their guard,
lest they should suppose that this bill would affect the City
of London only. 1 here was another great objection to the
bill, and it was this, that it would entail additional expense
upon the ratepayers ; for while one-fourth of the cost of the
police of the metropolitan districts was paid out of the Con-
solidated Fund, the City paid the entire cost of its police. But
under this bill the whole cost of the police would be thrown
upon the ratepayers. (Hear, hear.) Muck stress was laid
upon the statement that the population of the City was only
112,000; but it was altogether a mistake to estimate the
population of the City by the number of persons who slept in
it. There was every reason to believe that half a million of
people did business in the City daily; but in whatever way
they estimated the population, the fact remained that the
property of the City of London was threefold greater than
the property of any district of the metropolis of the same
extent. The hon. gentleman next adverted to several
Royal and civic processions which had taken place in
ancient times in the City of London, and charged the
Home Secretary with the whole blame of the unfortunate
occurrence of the 7th of May for not permitting the Lord
Mayor and his brethren to form in the Borough, and pre-
cede the Roy al procession the entire way. The right hon.
gentleman the Home Secretary had referred to the demon-
stration in the City; but he (Mr. Alderman Sidney) could
not help thinking the present bill was an unworthy return
for that demonstration. (Hear.) The streets of London were
peculiarly inappropriate for illuminations, yet millions of
people paraded them that night. It was to be regretted that
several deaths occurred through some panic; and Govern-
ment were much to blame in allowing the illuminations.
The Metropolitan Police were unable to carry out their in-
structions ; and why, he asked, had no inquiry taken place
into their conduct. (Hear.) A more lamentable failure of the
carrying out of the regulations adopted by the Metropolitan
Commissioner of Police had never occurred than on that
night. That no lives were lost was a perfect miracle ; and
that miracle arose from the fact that the carriages could not
move in the streets. (Loud laughter.) If the right hon.
gentleman were successful in carrying this measure, its pro-
visions must be extended to all large municipal towns,
which would be inconsistent with the principle of local self-
government. The bill was mischievous and uncalled for,
and contrary to the constitution of the country. (Hear.)
The LORD MAYOR said a more unconstitutional pro.-
position had never been brought forward. A police was
essentially a local force, and he fearlessly asserted that the
City police were in every respect very superior to the Me-
tropolitan force. Robberies accompanied with violence
in the daytime were of frequent occurrence in the me-
tropolitan districts, but it was not the case in the City.
Indeed, if they were to occur with any frequency within
the City, the head of the police force would speedily be dis-
missed, and replaced by a more efficient and competent
person. Ihe City police were in a most efficient state. A
record was kept by them of every person who passed
through the City daily—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and
there was scarcely a thief that was not known to them
and his haunts well ascertained. He instanced the captures
of notorious commercial criminals, that had of late years
been apprehended in the city and brought to justice, and
had received their due amount of punishment. He urged
that if the question of precedence in the Royal procession
had been ceded to the corporation nothing would have
occurred to mar the successful termination of the day's pro.
ceedings. He considered it was ungrateful on the part of
the Government that, after the corporation of London had
expended a large sum of money, and given that which no
other city in the world could give, their local self-govern-
ment should be attacked. (Hear,) The proposal, if carried,
would he the adoption of the foreign police system, and
would be the means of placing a force of 10,000 armed men
at the disposal of the Home Secretary, He would resist
the proposed measure throughout its stages. (Hear.)
Mr. NORRIS opposed the motion for the introduction
of the bill. The hon. member laid before the house certain
statistical information which he alleged had an important
bearing upon the subject. The average cost of the city po-
lice was £79 ls. 7d. per man, while that of the Metropolitan
police was £7B 3s. 2d., the cost of the county constabulary
being £7B 10s. ; so that the difference of cost between the
City and the Metropolitan police, as to which so much had
been heard, was under 19s. per man. And then, although
the resident population of the City might only amount to
112,000, it was a fact that nearly 1,000,000 of people retired
from the City each evening to sleep in the country, who
left property behind them to an enormous amount in charge
of the City police.
Sir G. BOWYER, as an independent member, was de-
termined to offer the bill every opposition ; indeed, he could
have wished that it was consistent with etiquette to reject
so obnoxious a proposal even at that early stage. With re-
gard to the inconveniences at the late procession, he be-
lieved they were chiefly owing to her Majesty's Govern-
ment, in having confined the chief portion of the proces-
si9n to the City itself. This caused everybody to crowd to
that part of the town. Had it been properly distributed be-
tween the Bricklayer's Arms and the Great Western Rail-
way Station, there would have been comparatively no pres-
sure at any point. Instead of that, however, owing to the
restrictions imposed by the Government, the procession be-
yond Temple Bar consisted of nothing but six carriages and
a few soldiers. (Hear.) He would ask the house, and even
the Government themselves, whether a large portion of the
blame did not belong to the Government for all that had
recently occurred, and afterwards he would ask whether
that was a good reason for their bringing forward a bill
of pains and penalties like the present, which he should
most certainly oppose. The bill, too, was extremely ill-
timed, after the City of London had recently done all they
could to show their loyalty and love for the Pr incess and
the Prince of Wales, both by munificent presents and by
the grand reception prepared for them.

Lord A. PAGET thought that up to that time the City
of London had certainly had the best of it, and ho should be
sorry to interrupt the harmony; but he must say, he did
not think the bill had been brought forward in consequence
of what had occurred on the memorable 7th of March.
He should much regret that anything which had occurred
buoeoc vyea gratifyingu ,
neo
that day should lead to the House of Commons being
l
made the battle-field of a contest with the corporation,
magnificent. He was quite certain that it had been very
r i
own caecocsaoeni
ndlpo
anPugri
ei nadne edt shsue
mnosf,ualWlni
edadl et
ros
e,
onut or
hbt
ahe
l d u
personagesentdeo hutehbretewplf,h the
whose
then given had been most
doubtless more than all called forth that splendid reception.
(Hear.) It was not for him to be the exponent of her Ma-
jesty's feelings, but he was proud to say he hal served her
for 20 of the best years of his life, arri he knew that no
one could appreciate bettor than her Majesty the univer-
sal sympathy that had been shown to her, and the loyalty
p r
vHi
leeagre,
sh
oe
fa rt .h) e
CHi
tey s. h o
Tu
hl de
ibr ehsoosrprrt
atloi iynht eard-
foefrheewr
ipteho
tphl ee.
become famous throughout the world. He had himself
very often experienced it, and he hoped that nothing he
ou( Lfn ad theuegr
lseduhrei notty, be done any
might say would prevent him from enjoying it again.
thatto tbhee
placed police
homnt eeert .8r)uo
pp
oeSlroiisncot
eoutivdhientn,cefeeod,r:, t
hht
haoetw,peiufvbei
public
, cc wosuae
other way, he would prefer to see it all handed over to the
City than under two different heads. He found from the
blue book furnished by the City that out of 608 police, the
entire force, there were only 372 men left to keep the whole
distance from London Bridge to Temple-bar. And, as he
said on a former occasion, the non-occurrence of a serious
accident was due more to the good humour of the people
than the good management of the City. The hon member
for Stafford (Mr. Alderman Sidney) had threatened them
all with the terrors of the next election if they voted for this
bill. It was said by some members of the corporation at re-