The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-05-19 00:00:00

THE NEW DAY POLICE BILL.

• Mr. Smith rose and said it was his intention to bring for-
Ward a motion to the effect that it was desirous, as a bill was then
before parliament for the establishment of a new day police, to
'obtain the sanction of the board to that bill. He had not given
'a formal notice of the motion in the books of the board, but he
had informed most of the commissioners of his intention to bring
it forward several days ago.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Thornhill objected to the motion being
brought forward. The rules of the board, they said, demand-
ecl that a week's notice of every-motion should be given.
Mr. Birkett was against the motion being introduced, as he
did mit see that the aard had a right to interfere with any bu-
siness but that connected Kith the lighting, watching, Scc., of the
'town.
- ' • • •
Mr. Thornhill said it was .liig,l4improper nf Mr. Birkett to
endeavour to susp_end a standing order orthe board.
Mr. Birkett.—The whole ,of the commissioners were averse
five days ago to my intention to introduce the motion; and I
cannot conceive what objections Can he made to it. It may be
true that there is a resolution ou. the books, to the effect that a
weekly notice shall be given of motions; but the resolution was
not passed by this board. (Hear.)
Mr. Williams.—E very act passed by other boards is binding
upon us, unless they be rescinded at Mr. Smith's. Thss cousre
appears to me to be irregular. I think the discusiion ought to
be postponed until next week.
. A Commissioner.—Then the motion would be too late, as the
bill will be brought into the house before that time.
Mr. Santley rose to object to the time of notice, and was
loudly called to order. He insisted upon his right to be heard,
and protested the proceeding which they were about endewiouring
to carry into effect. He contended that Mr. Smith was not
justified iu attempting to break through one of the standing
orders, and which was peremptory in requiring a week's no-
tice. The question brought before them was one of great mo-
ment, requiring something more than a premature discussion;
and he therefore thought that Mr. Smith had not acted fairly
towards the board in bringing it thus forward. He hoped Mr.
Smith would see the necessity of deferring his motion till that
day week, when it would come.before the board in a legal shape
Mr. Smith in reply said, I have taken no unfair advantage of
the board whatever. I would not have had the least objection
to the week's notice, had I been aware that the bill'a would be
brought before parliament.
Mr. Birkett.—lf Mr. Smith perseveres in his notices, I shall
move an amendment to the effect that this board has no right
whatever to interfere with the police bill.
Mr. Williams.—Mr. Smith gave a week's notice of the ap-
pointmentment of a tire police committee, but he wants us to
go into. the discussion of this most important question at once.
Mr. Smith.—Because I was not aware last Friday that the
new police bill would be brought on next week.
Mr. Santley.—You know, Mr. Miller, that on Tuesday last
the Select Vestry passed a resolution to support the new police
bill, when it was resolved that the mayor should proceed ,to
London to-morrow at the head of a deputation in favour of -the
bill, and you want us to pass a similar vote that the mayor may
go doubly armed with the approval of two public boards. I con-
sider such conduct to obtain the vote of this board to be nothing
better than political trickery. .(Hisses.)
Mr Smith.—l can inform you that I was quite ignorant of a
motion having passed the Select Vestry in support of the bill.
My object in bringing forward the motion is because I have
seen the necessity of procuring such a bill, and I will do all in
my power in its favour. (Hear.)
' -
Mr. Thornhill.—But do it fairly.
Mr. Williams.—,As, a church of England man, I am not one
who would offer factious opposition to any measure for the pro-
per payment of the clergy; but I have the strongest objection
to some of the clauses of this new police bill. •
. Mr. Thorfibill.—So have I ; but I am favourable to the esta-
blishment of a day-police upon a proper basis.
The Chairman then put the question whether Mr. Whitty's
motion should then he brought forward, which was carried un-
animously.

Mr. Smith then rose to propose the motion. He said that in
October last, the Mayor and Corporation having met the views
of the parishioners by preparing the new police bill, which most
..persogs who,yiatcbed the increasing, wealth_ and. importance
of 'the Own must see the necessity for, sought the concur-
rence of the watch board, wishing that body, by their co-opera-
tion, to further the interests of the borough by sanctioning the
measure. The board then, as well as the Select Vestry, ex-
pressed their approbation of the bill, and resolved to support it
by creating themselves a body to carry the measure into effect,
its principle having been unanimously recognized by a general
vestry. After this (in March last) Mr. Woods the law-clerk,
'was requested ,by the board to apply to the Town-clerk for a
'copy of the bill. It was furnished accordingly, and a commit-
tee formed from the board was instituted for the purpose of tak-
ing its provisions into consideration. The committee drew up
a long report against the bill, and six hundred and fifty copies
thereof were printed and sent to each member of parliament;
and one of their-members (Mr. liwart) was written to by the
-chairman at the request of the board, desiring him to oppose the
bill. Mr. Sinith then proceeded to read the report alluded to,
commenting upon the objections raised against the bill by the•
committee, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Santley, who asked for what purpose the reportwas read ?
' Mr. Smith replied that he would not be interrupted.
The Chairman said it would be more courteous to allow Mr.
Smith to read the report, and ask the question afterwards. The
report might furnish them with information, and he for one had
not made up his mind on the subject.
Mr. SMITH said he could not see what reason Mr. Santley
could have fur objecting to the report being read, when it
emanated from the late board, of which Mr. bantley formed

• The report having been read,
Mr. Smith, in continuation, said that the principle of the hill
was carried, at a special vestry, by a majority of 2 to 1. The
select vestry tepOrted in its favour, at the last Easter vestry,
and no one then objected to it. Even Mr. Santley did not oo-
j ect to it, although he was present. It was impossible to flame
a bill to please all parties. • You entrust the churchwardens with
the expenditure of £50,000, and object to trust them with £6,000
on account of the day police. The necessity for such a force
was obvious. Having brought before them these facts he hoped
the board would not separate without co-operating with the se-
lect vestry to secure the bill. It had been said that the bill
.would be thrown out by parliament, but he did not think so, as
parliament would, no doubt, consider that the parishioners of
Liverpool were best able to,judge of their own local wants. The
town had been too long without a.day,police, and the purport
of the resolution he was desirous of submitting? was merely to
• receive a vote of that board, calling upon the members for the
borough, in conjunction with the county members, to withhold
'their support to the former resolution forwarded to them by the
late board, and to give their support in lieu thereof, to the reso-
lution he was about to propose, praying the house to grant the
provisions sought for in the bill which will shortly come before
parliament. (Hear.) He should propose
• "That it is the opinion of this Board, that the petition trant
emitted to Mr Ewart, under the Resolution of the 18th March
last, be withdrawn, in consequence of the unanimous feeling of
the Inhabitants in favour of the Day Police Bill at the Annual
Vestry on Easter Tuesday, and of the strong presentment of
the Grand Jury of this Borough, as to the necessity of the bill,
at the last Easter Sessions.

"That the Chairman be instructed, to transmit a•copy of the
above resolution to Mr. Ewart, coupled with a request that he
Would not present the petition in question.
"That the Chairman of this Meeting be instructed to address
a letter to the Members of this County. and the Members of the
Borough, in the name and behalf of this Board„reqnesting,their
support of the Day Police Bill." -
Mr. Birkett, although out of doors an advocate for a Bill of
the description, considered that it was.a matter, they were not
entitled to meddle with, being informed, upon good authority,
that an interference of the sort was illegal, the Board being in-
stituted for the purposes of the watch and scavenging department
solely, and that they were liable to be indicted for a misde-
meanour in taking the steps they bad already datiei7-especially
if an attempt were made to appropriate any of.. the Commis-
sioners' funds in support of the object in view.
Mr. Smith agreed that the Board ought not to have had any-
thing to do with the progress of that measure, either in retarding
or promoting its success, it being entirely out of their province
and jurisdiction, but as it had been taken in hand by a former
Board, he thought they were bound to go forward with it. lie
(Mr. S.) did not ask the Board for their funds; all he wanted
was their co-operation, which woald be gained if he were suc-
cessful in carrying the resolutions which he had read to them.
He would take upon himself to guarantee any expenditure that
might arise in forwarding the Bill in its progress •through the
House, from falling upon the Commissioners of Watch. All he
(Mr: S:) sought for, was the vote of the present Board, calling
upon Mr. Ewart to withdraw his former mission, and requiring
him to give his support to the present Day Police Bill. The
reference altogether would be only four sheets of paper.
Mr. Birkett said that although the other board had done
wrong by interfering with the police bill it did not follow that
the present board should imitate their example.
Mr. Smith said that if the late board had done wrong by
writing to Mrs Ewart and the other members of parliament,- it
was the duty of the present board to set them right.
Mr. Birkett said that he had no objection to support Mr.
Smith's motion if he would make it so that the members-of par-
liament were not to act upon any instructions as coining from
the board.

replied that that would be doing nothing; he
merely asked the board to write to four members of parliament,
nut to six hundred and fifty, as before.

.11r. Williams said that if it was wrong in principle to address
letters' about the bill to six hundred and fifty members of parlia-
ment, it was just as bad to address four: If Mr. Smith pressed
his motion, he (Mr: Williams) should
.make' an amendment.
It was well known that the present ministry were pledged to
grant a measure of municipal reform; the Stanley section of the
commons were tied, hand and 'foot, by Vice pledges: Eien Sir
R: Peel would have done something of the sort: Instead, there-
fore, of conflicting interests—the watch trust opposed to the
police, the police to the dock trust—they would lierhaps have a
corYsolidation of all the froards; it Wonld be absurd, on the eve
htstich a Measure, to create a new and distinct trust. Nor did he
think that the bill was fair towards the clergy: It would he a
different thing if the corporation sacrificed part of their income
*AO Ore clerical incomes. freehold: But the day might

arise when a common council inimical to the clergy may have
the public expenditure in th.eir handS, and may cast off, at a
word, the salaries of the clergy.- He would not object to Mr.
Smith's simply nullifying the resolution of the late board, but
beyond that he would nutgo with him.
Wt.. Smith said that he should certainlypress his motion.
;Mr. Santley next followed at some length in opposition to
Mi.. Smith's motion. He proceeded to •cornment on all the
clauses contained in the'proposed day police bill, which he said
was a compound of absurdities. He objected to it in the first
place, because not one parishioner in forty would have the pri-
vilege of voting on the subject; that a churchwarden would be
allowed to be a commissioner as well, which he considered was
decidedly opposed to practice and reason, together with there
being so small a number required to conduct its affairs, How-
ever few there may be present at any of their proceedings,
those who are in attendance may dispose of the business before
them, without waiting for a sufficient number to make a
quorum, for which there appears no stipulation. Any person
who wishes, may elect himself to the chair, and it is left entirely
with the commissioners to appoint what servants he may think
fit, and at what salaries they choose, without being subject to
any sort of controul, or being made amenable to any person for
their acts. Another clause which he (Mr. Santley) disapproved
of, was the one authorising the new force to carry arms in the
open day light, while there is a force for the night duty which is
found amply sufficient to answer all the purposes for which it
is intended, without any n,,cess:ty arising for the use or intro-
duction of fire-arms. Another direct attack upon the liberty of
the subject is attempted to be made by arming this intended
new force with full powers to take into custody any person
whom they may suspect, at their caprice or otherwise, of being
guilty of any offence coming under their cognizance. Should
it happen that they occasionally fix suspicion upon an indivi-
dual, who turns out to be innocent of the crime imputed to him,
he has no redress for being wrongfully placed in confinement,
there being no prevision in the bill to punish a policeman for
over-stepping his duty; but should a poticeman be assaulted, or
any insult offered to him, a clause is to be found fixing the
penalty for such an offenCe. He ( Mr. S.) took the-same objection
to another clause which appears in the bill, to the effect, that the
commissioners shall make a statement of the money expended
by thein at a stated time, if practicable; but the commissioners
themselves are to be the judges of the practicability of the
thing, and might spend what they please.
Mr. Smith said that threepence in the pound was the extent
of the rate.
Mr. Santley replied, that they had only his (Mr. Smith's)
word for it,
Mr. Smith said that Mr. Santley bad no reason to doubt his
word.

Mr. Williams considered that Mr. Santley was perfectly
right, he wanted a better authority than the mere ipse dixit of
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith said that his information was procured at the
Town-clerk's ofce;• where any parishioner might receive the
same,.

After some further conversation between Mr. Smith, Mr.
Santley, and Mr. Williams, the formerjsaid that he thought it
morally impossible to please Mr. Santley with any bill. He
had, in fact, objected_ to every clan .;in the present one.
(Hear.).
Mr. Highfield thought that there could be no objection what-
ever to the motion. The request was not to put the board to
the expense of printing 650 circulars for paity purposes.—
(Heir, hear.) . •
Mr. Birkett was of opinion that an amendment ought to be
proposed, on Mr. Smith's !notion, to the effect, that this board
had no right to appropriate its funds in any way connected with
the new_ police bill.
Mr. Williams asked whether Mr. Birkett spoke prospectively
or retrospectively.
Mr. Birkett said "both."
Mr. Williams replied, then in that case he could say nothing
to the amendment, as he bad already given his sanction to the
act of the late board.

Mr. Smith said that• the amendment was unnecessary, as he
would introduce in his motion, to meet the views of all parties,
that the board be put to no expense whatever.
Mr. Birkett said that if they passed Mr. Smith's resolution
the House of Commons would be told that one board had voted
against the bill, and another, taken from the Exchange flags,
had voted in favour of it.
Mr. Thornhill said that the House of Commons would be told
of what kind of scheme they had been subject to. 'What could
the present board, which had only sat a fortnight, know of the
police bill, compared with the other that had sat twelve months..
He was in favour of a day police, but he knew it would be better
to consolidate the day police and the nightly watch. The bill
he considered unnecessary. The Town-clerk, when asked by
the corporation commissioners whether the day police was
efficient, had said that it was. He was sure that if they passed
Mr. Smith's motion the whole proceedings would be swept away
by parliament.
Mr. Smith, (addressing. Mr. Thornhill.)—How do you know
it will be swept away ? I have no doubt that, in your opinion,
if the bill was proposed by Messrs. Thornhill and Santley it
would be found satisfactory.
Mr. Thornhill said something in reply, but as he was rather
warm, and spoke thickly, we did not understand its meaning.
Mr. Birkett inquired whether there was any precedent on the
journals of a protest being entered' by any member against the
proceedings of the board.
Mr. Williams replied that Dr. Collins, at the late board, pro-
tested nearly every week; but he was not aware that the pro-
tests were entered in the books. The question of the legality of
Mr. Smith's motion having again arisen,-the chairman said
that he did not perceive any illegality in the board writing to
Mr. Ewart and three other members of parliament. (Hear.)
Mr. Thornhill said the proceedings were the most barefaced
within his knowledge. _lt seemed from what had dropped from
:Mr. Smith, that all the supporters of the bill aimed at was ob-
,taining the sanction of the board, for which they did not scruple
to declare that there were parties in the back ground willing to
defray the expense incurred. The drift might be easily seen
through, and perhaps, it would be as well. if they succeeded in
carrying their point, as the thing would expose itself if passed,
and would not tail to have its due effect on the public mind. He
bad little hesitation in declaring that it would be the means of
holding up its promoters to the derision of all parties. If it
was a public motion of the board he considered that the board
ought to pay the expenses.
The Chairman asked the law-clerk if the board could legally
pay expenses which might be incurred thus?
Mr. Woods. —lt is not legal.. The grant of £5OO to the Dis- '
pensaries is not legal.
Mr. Smith.—Have you known-the beard- to pay -money il-
legally ?
Mr. Woods.—Frequently. The- act of parliament does not
provide for the payment of advertisements, for instance.
Mr; Williams put an amendment into the hands of the Chair-
man, which, in substance was, that as a bill will be immediately
brought before parliament on the subject of corporations, with
a view to their revision, it is considered inexpedient at present
'to apply for a local act on the subject of a day police.
The amendment and the original motion were then put from
the chair, when the latter was unanimously cart ied.
Mr. Williams then asked Mr. Birkett whether he intended to.
enter his protest against the proceedings.
Mr. Birkett replied that as there was no precedent for such a
proceeding he should 'decline doing so ; they had been fairly
beaten and must abide by it.

Mr. Humble denied that they had been fairly beaten : it was
a political party feeling.
Mr. Pierce said he was at a loss to know what party politics
had to do with a police bill. (Hear.) '
A Commissioner expressed an opinion that party feeling ex-
isted at the late board to a great extent, and that the parties
who threw out the insinuation were judging the present board
by their own conduct on a previous occasion. The business of
the day terminated by leave of absence for a week being granted
to Captain Kerr, to go to Glasgow as a candidate for the office
of superintendent of the fire-police, there vacant. It was una-
nimously resolved that the board should give him a handsome
testimonial of character.

At the termination of the proceedings. Mr Santley rose to
enter his protest against what had taken place. He cared not
whether there was a precedent for such a step or nut. He would
not hesitate to declare that it was a most unfair meeting, got up
to serve the ends of a certain party, who were at all times ini-
mical to every thing conducive to the public weal.—(Hisses.)
He considered it had been set on foot for a political purpose,
and was the most contemptible and unworthy proceeding that
he had a recollection of.