The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

LONDON,' WEDNES DAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1849,

manner. No difference had taken place in the manage-
ment of the force since that inquiry, and he cquld not see

any reason why another inquiry should be granted. With
regard to the increase of the expenditure, and of
the number of the force, he was willing to
afford all the information in his power,
and that would bo desired by the Noble Lard.
The original Act required that the expenses of
this force should be paid by a county rate of 3d. in the

pound ; and by a subsequent Act 6d. in the pound
was fixed, and in cases were this was not sufficient the

Treasury was authorised to supply 2d. in the pound; and
60,0001. was now paid from the Consolidated Fund. The
counties included in the metropolitan rate were Middle-

sex, part of Sussex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Norfolk.
Some of the counties were below the average of the
property-tax valuation. Kent was 22 1-13th below the
average. The Right Hon. Baronet then concluded by
moving, as an amendment, for a return of the increase
of streets and houses in the metropolitan district, and

also of the population in the same, with a view to
account for the increase of the police expenditure.
Mr. BROTHERTON said the Noble Lord had
brought forward this motion with reference to the in-
terests of his constituents in the borough of Maryle-
bone, and protested against the injustice of this rate;
but instead of the rate being unjust in the case of Mid-
dlesex, of Marylebone, it was still more unjust towards
other counties, and it was on that ground he should
support the motion of the Noble Lord for a Committee
6f Inquiry, which he considered absolutely necessary.
In the county of Middlesex the rates were 6,500,0001.
Mr. OSBORNE-7,500,0001.
Mr. BROTHERTON—Lancashire was assessed at
more than that sum. In Marylebone the expense was
21,0001. a year, and iu Manchester it was 20,0001.; and
in addition to that, they had to pay towards the general
expenses of the police to the relief of the inhabitants
of Marylebone. He hoped the Noble Lord would per-
severe in his motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and
he should feel it to be his duty to give to him his best
support.
Mr. OSBORNE regretted that the Noble Lord who
brought forward this motion had led the House to be-
lieve that this was an attack upon the metropolitan po-
lice, and he hoped they would not go to a division on
the question with an impression of the kind. He did
not agree in the calumny which the Noble Lord had
thrown on the metropolitan police, because he believed
a more excellent and more efficient body of men could
not be. But, in the motion of the Noble Lord with
respect to the. increase of 35,0001. on Middlesex, for
the police force, he entirely concurred. Instead of
6,000.000/. a year, the county was rated upwards of
7,000,0001., and with a surplus of 61,0001. in the hands
of the Commissioners of Police, he was at a loss to know
why the county should be thus heavily rated. This was
not intended by the constituents of the Noble Lord as an
attack on the police, but they wished to be relieved
from this additional charge.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE did not think the force adapted
to the duty they had to perform in the district between
Woolwich and Kingston, which ' was thinly inhabited,
and could not be protected by the few policemen ap-
pointed to perambulate that district; and in fact depre-
dations had been committed to a great extent without
the constables being at all aware of it. To prevent this
they ought to be mounted, which would afford them
greater facilities of detection.
Mr. HUME said he objected to the grounds upon
which the motion was founded. It should be recollected
that this force cost 328,0001. a year, a part of which
was contributed from the Consolidated Fund, which he
thought a had principle, as any expenses incurred for
local purposes should be supplied from local funds. Lie
thought these ought to be made to ascertain whether
those expenses were fairly expended, but he did not
think there was time this session, and the Noble Lord
should be satisfied that the Government had called for
preliminary information. He did not agree with the
Noble Lord In the condemnation which he passed upon

the police, but if he persevered in his intention of di-
viding he should vote with him.
Sir DP. LACY EVANS said there were just grounds
of complaint on the part of several parishes against this
ch trge. At present the sixpenny rate must bo levied,
although only twopence might be sufficient, and he
hoped the Government would consent to an inquiry
in►o this absurdity and injustice. If the additional sum
was required, one-third part should be contributed from
the Consolidated Fund.

Sir G. GREY explained.
Sir J. HOGG said the Government had given an as-
surance that a Bill would be introduced to relieve the
metropolitan parishes from the burden that when a four-
penny rate would be sufficient, a sixpenny rate should
not be levied, but they afterwards abandoned it. He
thought it was but fair each locality should support its
own police, but the metropolitan police were sent on
duty to all parts of the country, and on that ground a
contribution should be made from the Consolidated
Fund. _ _

Sir G. GREY said the grounds on which a motion of
the charge of this force was borne by the Consolidated
Fund was, that the metropolitan police were employed
at the Houses of Parliament and by the Government,
and not because they were sent into the country, for on
those occasions the expense was borne by the locality to
he hoped if a Committee was
whichmthey were
Mr.
TnoitNEstn. nnicl
yt
appointed, that county Members would be placed upon
it to defend the interests of their constituents from the
burthen imposed upon them by the contribution to this
force from the general taxation.
Lord D. STUART replied. He said it was true that
the expense of the police when employed in the country
was borne by the locality to which they were sent, but a
larger force was maintained to enable them to draught
them to the country on these contingencies than would
be otherwise necessary. As he had received no assur-
ance from the Government that they would provide a
remedy for this grievance he should divide the House
upon the motion.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said, as the Noble Lord was
determined to divide, he should vote with him.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ... 137
Majority ••• •• ".----109
THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER.

country,
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition, numerously signed,
from places in the county of Warwick, in favour of the
People's Charter.
Mr. FOX presented thirty-six petitions from various
places to the same effect.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR having presented a number of
petitions from Nottingham and other places, then pro-
ceeded with his motion to the following effect :—" That
this House, recognising the great principle that labour is
the source of all wealth—that the people are the only
legitimate source of power—that the labourer should be
the first partaker of the fruits of his own industry—
that taxation without representation is tyranny, and
should be resisted, and believing that the resources of
the conntry would bo best developed by laws made by
representatives
thosechosenn
nb yl i
vthe
ylabouring
dculsatsrsi east ,
pursuits,
scno
in
jt 3
that, in recognition of the above great truths, this
thee l
e,a
Charter, embodied
namely, i n
annualthe
elections,document
entitled Housenniv er
saadtl suffrage, Psopffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral dis-
tricts, no property qualification, and payment of MbEli•
bfa.s." Ho was aware, he said, of the disadvantages
under which he laboured in bringing forward his mo-
tion ; but it was the cause of justice, and he would not
shrink from doing his duty. He contended that
great questions such as these, affecting, as they
did, the vital interests of the people, ought
to be discussed sessionally, and if they were to be
opposed, let them be opposed by sound argument and
not put down by brute force. Applications were made
to him to withdraw his motion, in order to allow the
motion of the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire to
proceed; but he felt he would not be doing justice to the
labouring classes had he postponed his motion on any
such account. He contended that any question affecting
theo utnhP toer
loicpslehonuagdhitsetnovbereedd itshcuatssnend
gsnesnsdiownaaillyd.nneTthheemiribsyh
emancipation, so it was with the Reform Bill in this
y,
for no sooner did the party who carried that
measure
get into power, than they forgot and abandoned
the people. Every Hon. Member must be made aware
that that House was divided into classes, into officers of
the army and navy, bankers, merchants, traders, and
lawyers, all of whom believed that the interests of the
working classes were opposed to theirs. He contended
that if labour was fairly represented it would conduce to
the prosperity of all classes. Labour was now the great
question on the continent, and although the state of
countries there may be urged as a reason for making no
concessions, he denied it was just to do so, If France be
referred to, he should quote that country in favour of his
argument; for they had had two elections for an Assembly
and one for a President since the revolution, without any
convulsion having taken place. lie should not detain
the House at any great length; for probably he should
be without one before he concluded his speech; but be
that as it may, he should discharge his duty. He con-
tended that reformation never led to revolution. He
produced the original charter, drawn up by Daniel
O'Connell, and signed by J. A. Roebuck, C. Hindley,
and others, the only difference being that annual Parlia-
ments were preferred before triennial. He denounced
the Irish Members as " lickspittles " who supported
Government on every question, but absented themselves
on the present occasion, when the interests of the people
were at stake. He contended that if they had annual
Parliaments they could settle annual accounts with their
constituents, and not allow political 'tergiversations to
go on for years, as happened under the present Parlia-
ment. Instead of having that hasty legislation they now
had, men would know what they came into Parliament
for, and instead of having important questions settled by
majorities: of 50 or 60, they would be discussed by
the people at large. He remembered a signal instance of
the value of annual Parliaments. At a time when it
was proposed to dissolve Parliament a question was
brought forward for the liberation of all political
eognly lost by a small majority—whereas
doffenders,
aftersnus s tehe a.
ndw
and electiona
negatived
awtiays ed over,bya la
the question
majority.uestionw
was again
discussed,That
showed that when they were about to appear before their
constituents, they held opinions which they thought
would obtain them favour, but the moment that was
past, they set them at defiance. One great object would
be obtained by holding annual Parliaments. What did
they legislate for, but the mind of the day? and was
not seven years now of greater (length—if he might say
so—than a century in the old Tory times? He rose just
now under very unfortunate circumstancel. He had no
monster petition, no popular demonstration to back him,
but let them not take that as a sign of the times against
him; for the fact was, that the people, disgusted with the
mode in which their petitions were received, had resolved
to petition no more. The absence of petitions was a
proof that the people had lost all confidence in that
House. His object was to obtain a fair representation
peoplefrtdpair
ietitee
ndit na
tot i ttohhnae ti
their
tHf
aciolrua
sss
hse
e.asr.eAoltf t
.r pe
tprherese es
wne
ntntrtakht
iei
nor
gne
ocilflttishi:nsnwwlhyto,ralee
in that House, andpirtieipationi n the privileges of go-
YerUnlent, would Om . .. ?He thought
,