The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-25 00:00:00

On Saturday a mEeting of the Marylebone Vestry took
place at the Court house, Marylebone-lane, for the pur-
pose of considering a motion of which Mr. Tufnell, M.P.
for Meoriport, had given notice, to the effect, " That a
Committee be appointed to report the number of police
stations and policemen employed in the parish, and to
ascertain whether the amount levied for the maintenance
of the police force is a fair proportion as compared with
that levied on othermetropolitan districts."— Mr. Tabrum
having been called to the Chair,
Mr. H. TUFNELL said, the present subject was one of
great importance, inasmuch as, under the present police
regulations, the most gross injustice was done to the
great metropolitan district of Marylebone. Prior to the
introduction of the new police in •1829, the watch of
Marylebone consisted of 197 persons, and the expense of
their annual maintenance was under 10,0001, and Sir
Robert Peel, in his speech of that period, admitted the
efficiency, and held up the police of Marylebone as a
pattern to all other districts. Indeed, had all other dis-
tricts been as efficiently watched, there would have
been no occasion for the present centralized police
system. (Hear, hear.) The number of police
in that district consisted of one superintendent, four in-
spectors, 25 sergeants, 181 constables, and which, were
they properly assessed, ought not to cost Marylebone
more then 10,7341. annually ; but, in addition to about
6,0001. from the Consolidated Fund, the cost of the police
annually amounted to 27,176/. ; therefore, they actually
paid for double the amount of the men employed, and for
the police employed in other districts.—(Hear, hear.)
St. George's, Hanover-square, only paid for police the
annual sum of 14,42 E/ ; St. James's had 169 constables,
and only paid annually 5,941/—(Shame)—and Maryle-
bone, for 181 constables, had to pay directly 20,3821., and
indirectly 27,1761.—(5hame, shame)—Lambeth, with an
area of 3,650 acres, and having 167 constables, only paid
8,282/.; Kensington had 179 constables, and only paid
5,9811.; and the parish of Islington had 578 constables,
and;only paid 13,407/ annually—(Cries of " Shame ")
and, what was worse, the small parish of St. Paul,
Covent-garden, paid but 9871. annually for the support
of the police, and bad no less than 139 constables.—
(Shame.) He (Mr. Tufnell) did not wish to raise the
amount of other districts, but he thought Marylebone
ought to be reduced to its fair and proper proportion.
He considered the police system as the very worst pos-
sible system of tyranny, and, unless the Police Commis-
sioners thought proper to remedy this evil, he should
certainly feel it his duty to bring the subject before Par-
liament.

Mr. BIERS sedonded the motion. He knew not whe-
ther the staff of the police themselves pocketed the sur-
plus money, but clear it was that that parish were made
to pay at the rate of 1001. per year for every policeman,
whereas the most the poor fellows got was from 16s. to
11. per week ; and this was paid for a force by far more
inefficient than the old watch of that parish.
Mr. JOWETT said this was a question at the present
time peculiarly worthy of consideration, as regarded the
efficiency of a police force, for which not only •Maryle-
bone but the metropolitan districts were taxed so heavily,
and whether the people had a proper and fair return for
their money. The events of the last few days had
clearly, if any other proof were wanting, demonstrated
the fact, that as a detective force the police were wofully
deficient.—(Hear, hear.) It was convincing proof that
there was something radically wrong in the conduct of a
police force that could allow the murderer Good to escape
in the way he did, and remain out of the hands ofjustice
for fifteen days.
Mr. THOMAS, the barrister, rose to order. They had
no right to presume the man a murderer until he was
tried.

Mr. 'TowErr—lt would require all the eloquence the
Learned Counsel was possessed of to show that Daniel
Good was not, a murderer: He contended, that under
the old Bow-street police system, a person would not
have been at large as many hours as Good had days ;
they had a right, therefore, to inquire into this system.
—(Hear, hear.) What had the Police Commissioners
been doing with respect to the late murder ? Why, they
had absolutely suspended Inspector Tedman, thc most
efficient officer of the Marylebone district of police,. be-
cause he had not apprehended Good in South-street,
Manchester-square, upon a description that was no
more like the man charged with the murder than he
was, and without • even telling the police that Good i
re-
sided n South-street, a fact which was perfectly well
known to them through young Oughton, who had been
at Good's house, and through Good's son, who had ac-
tually come from thence.—(Hear.) This showed the
inefficiency and the gross partiality that existed in the
staff of the police, and the necessity for an alteration.
Mr. COCHRANE thought the police ought not to be
deemed inefficient from the mere fact that Good, the
murderer, had not been apprehended sooner than he
was, for, after all, the police had some connexion with
his being brought to justice.
Mr. JOSEPH said he could speak to the efficiency of
Inspector Tedman, for a more active and intelligent
officer there was not existing in the police force. It was
through him that Courvoisier was brought to justice.
The blame was attributable to the superintendent and
constables of the V diviiion, in not giving a proper de-
scription of Good's person, and eler•ising more judg-
ment than they had done.—(Hear, hear.)
On the motion being put it was 'unanimously adopted,
and ultimately it was agreed to memorialize the Secre-
tary of State upon the gross injustice that had been done
to Inspector Tedman in the case of Good.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
ORDER OF COURT, Aram 11.
T. That in cases where the defendant shall not have
put in his answer in due time after appearance, and
the plaintiff shall be unable with due diligence to pro-
cure a writ of attachment to be.executed against such
defendant, by reason of his being out ofthe jurisdiction
of the Court, or being concealed, or for any other
cause, then such defenant shall, for the purposes of
this order, be deemed to have absconded to avoid the
process of this Court.
That in cases where any defendant, who may be so
deemed to have absconded, shall have appeared by his
own
enteredclerk for Court,e or an appearance having been
under the eighth of. the orders of the
28th day of August, 1841, he shall have afterwards
appeared by his own clerk in Court, the plaintiff may
hinim un d
serve uport such clerk in Court a notice, that on a day
in such notice named (being not less than 14 days
after the service of such notice) the Court will be
moved that the bill may be taken pro confesso against
such defendant ; and the plaintiff is, upon the hearing
of such motion, to satisfy the Court that such defendant
ought, under the provisions of this order, to be deemed
to have absconded, and the Court being so satisfied,
and the answer not being filed, may, if it shall so
think fit, order the bill to be taken pro confesso
against such defendant, either immediately or at such
time, or upon such further notice as under the circum-
stances of the case the Court may think proper.
That in cases where any defendant, who may be so
deemed to have absconded, shall have had an appear-
ance entered for him under the eighth of the orders of
the 26th day of August, 1841, and he shall not after-
wards have appeared by his own clerk in Court, the
plaintiff may cause to be inserted in the London Ga-
zette a notice, that on a day in such notice named
(being not less than four weeks after the first insertion
of such notice in the London Gazette) the Court will
he moved that the bill may be taken pro confesso
against such defendant, and the plaintiff is upon the
hearing of such motion to satisfy the Court that such
defendant ought, under the provisions of this order, to
he deemed to have absconded, and that such notice of
motion has been inserted in the London Gazette at
least once in every week from the time of the first in-
sertion thereof up to the time for which the said
notice shall have been given, and the Court being so
satisfied, and the answer not having been filed, may,
if it shall so think fit, order the bill to be taken pro
confesso against such defendant, either immediately,
or at such time, or upon such further notice, as under
the circumstances of the case the Court may think
proper.
11. That upon default by an infant defendant in
not appearing to, or not answering the bill, the Court
may, upon motion, order that the senior six cleric not
towards the cause may be assigned guardian of such
infant defendant, by whom he may appear to and
answer, or may Answer the bill~ and defend the suit,
upon the Court being satisfied that such defendant is
an infant, and, if the infant has not appeared, that the
subpoena to appear to and answer the bill was duly
served, and (whether the infant has appeared or not)
that a notice of such motion was (after the expiration
of the time for appearing to or answering the bill, and
at least six clear days before the hearing of such
motion) served upon or left at the dweiling-house of
the person with whom or under whose care such
infant defendant was at the time of serving the
subpcena, and was also served upon or left at the
dwelling house of the father or guardian (if any) of
such infant, where the person with whom, or under
whose care, the infant was at the time of such service,
shall not be the father or guardian of the infant,
unless the Court at the time of hearing such motion
shall think fit to dispense with such last-mentioned
service.

• 111. That the plaintiff shall, without special leave
of the Court, be at liberty to serve any notice of mo-
tion, or other notice, or any petition, personally or at
the dwelling-house or office of any defendant, who,
having been duly served with subpoena to appear to
and answer the bill, shall not have caused an appear-
ance to be entered by his own clerk in Court at the
time for that purpose limited by the general orders of
the Ccurt.

IV. That the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
of the orders of the 26th day of August, 1841, shall
not take effect until further order.
V. That the 22d of the orders of the 26th day of
Augu.st, 1841, shall be suspended until further order.
VI. That the orders of the 26th day of August,
1841, shall be amended as to numbers 10, 11, 12, and
47, in manner following; that is to say,—
" 10. That no writ of execution shall hereafter be
issued for the purpose of requiring or compelling obe-
dience to any order or decree of the High Court of
Chancery, but that the party required by any such
grder or decree to do any act shall, upon being duly
served with such order or decree, be held bound to do
such act in obedience to the order or decree.
" 11. That if any party, who is by an order or de-
cree ordered to pay money or to do any other act in a
limited time, shall; after due service of such order or l
decree, refuse or neglect to obey the same according I
to the exigency thereof, the party prosecuting such '

THE POL::CE FORCE IN MARY-
LEBON E