POLICE (BOROUGHS AND COUNTIES) BILL.
The house then went into committee on the Police Bill.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved to leave out so much of clause 11 as made the payment by the Treasury of a portion of the charge for the police, in counties and boroughs, dependent upon the certificate of the Secretary of State. He did not think it necessary that the Secretary of State should step in to say that the rate had not been properly applied, and that proper persons had not been appointed, and that, therefore, the ratepayers should be deprived of one-fourth of the expenses, which one fourth was, under ordinary circumstances, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund (hear, hear). He believed that his amendment would not make the bill less efficient, while it would deprive the Secretary of State of such arbitrary power (hear, hear).
Sir G. GREY wished the power complained of could be dispensed with; but if government were deprived of it they would be oliged to grant the same contribution to boroughs and counties where the police force was inefficient, as they should to such as had an efficient police (hear, hear). He would be glad to consent to any less arbitrary clause that would be equally effective. The Secretary of State was responsible to parliament; but to meet the wishes of those who thought the clause required amendment, he was willing to add a proviso, to the effect that in every case in which the Secretary of State withheld the certificate a statement of the grounds on which it was withheld should be by him laid before parliament (hear, hear).
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not support the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Petersfield, because he thought that, in cases where a grant was made from the public funds, it was the duty of government to see that that grant was properly applied; and he was also of opinion that the proviso suggested by the right hon. baronet would go a long way towards meeting the objections made to the clause (hear, hear). However, he (Sir J. Pakington) thought that the clause was still open to objection; for, though the inspectors would no doubt be very respectable persons, they might make reports that might be very much objected to by the parties locally interested (hear, hear). The proviso of the right hon. gentleman did not meet that. Justice required that, before the grant was withheld, those parties who should suffer by the withholding of it should be heard (hear, hear)—that the Secretary of State should communicate the report of the inspectors to the local authorities in boroughs and counties, and call on them for an explanation (hear, hear). In case that explanation were not satisfactory there could be an intimation that if the police force were not placed in a more satisfactory state the grant should be withdrawn (hear, hear).
Sir G. GREY thought that the course suggested by the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) was the very one which a Secretary of State would take; but there was a difficulty in defining by a clause the particular modus operandi.
Sir F. BARING was of opinion that if the reports of the inspectors were to be laid upon the table of the house the reports of the local authorities should also be produced (hear, bear).
Sir J. TROLLOPE was connected with a locality in which the people did not think they required a police bill. However, if a compulsory police bill were passed, he thought there should be an inspectorship; and that the Secretary of State should have authority in the matter.
Mr. HENLEY was of opinion that if the house could now go into the consideration of the hon. member for Norfolk’s amendment, much time would be saved. He thought there should be a minimum as to the number of police fixed by the act. If this were not done, and that the clause now before the house stood as it was, the inspector sent to a particular county or borough might be of opinion that the number of police was not sufficient; and thus the inhabitants, after having gone on for a year, might find themselves deprived of the contribution of one-fourth, which was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund (hear, hear). Again, this grant might be withheld on the report of the inspectors that the police force was not in an efficient state of discipline, though the magistrates had no control over the chief constable, and that that officer could not be appointed without the sanction of the Secretary of State, who thereby became responsible for his appointment.
Sir G. GREY.—The magistrates may dismiss him.
Mr. HENLEY.—That was true; but they would have no control over him in matters of discipline, and, therefore, he thought that the present arrangement was not a satisfactory one (hear, hear). At all events the number of police ought to be fixed, and not left to the capricious judgment of local parties and Inspectors, who might arrive, respectively, at such opposite conclusions (hear, hear).
Lord LOVAINE would vote for the clause as it would stand when the proviso of the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey) was added to it, as he did not apprehend that there was the least fear of the Secretary of State exercising any but a proper supervision (hear, hear).
Mr. KNIGHT thought that there should be something definite laid down as to discipline and numbers, else they might have inspectors requiring a state of military discipline in the police force, and the numbers of the police might be increased from 16,000 to 32,000, every man of whom would have the power of a constable (hear, hear).
Mr. BENTINCK was of opinion that it was very unlikely that on the question of discipline any difficulty would arise; but on the question of numbers it was more likely that there would be difference of opinion (hear).
Sir W. HEATHCOTE thought that if the suggestions of the right hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), were acted upon, the other suggestions that had been made would fall into the background. Where a police force had been recently established, and government had approved of a certain number in proportion to the population, it, would be perfectly unreasonable that they should listen to the representations of an inspector that the number there was insufficient. He granted, however, that if the county, district, or borough went on a long time resisting what was a case of emergency for increasing the number, then the case would have arisen in which the government ought to refuse their aid. So also with respect to the question of discipline the same rule should apply. He attached great importance to the reports of the inspectors being well checked, and he hoped the Secretary of State would endeavour to give rather more effect to the suggestion of Sir F. Baring than was given by the bill in its present shape.
Mr. E. B. DENISON said it appeared to him that the only penalty for not adopting the bill would be that the county or borough omitting or refusing so to do would not get the money; but in some instances this would be a positive advantage and saving of expense to the locality. He confessed, however, that the bill completely puzzled him. Take the west riding of Yorkshire for instance. There they had no rural police. Pass the bill, and send it down to them. How were they to be compelled to adopt it? Why, they were not bound to appoint any number of constables unless they liked, which meant that they would not get any money unless they complied with the recommendations of the inspectors. The fact was, he believed, that the same anomalous state of things would exist after the passing of the bill as they found to prevail now.
Mr. MILES was decidedly of opinion that the inspectors’ report should be furnished to the justices or watch committee accused. In all probability, when they came to bring the new force into action it would be without, discipline or efficiency, and possibly be insufficient in number; but surely it would be very hard at the expiration of only a year for the Secretary of State to refuse his certificate to the Treasury merely upon the report of the inspector. The report of inefficiency ought to be sent either to the magistrates or the watch committee, by way of caution in the first instance, and the certificate should not be refused until after the expiration of the first year.
Sir G. GREY said he collected the feeling of the committee to be, that an arbitrary power should not be vested in the Secretary of State without giving the parties affected by the report an opportunity of considering and answering the grounds upon which it was made. He had, therefore, prepared a proviso to be annexed to the clause, to the effect that before the certificate was finally withheld, the report of the inspector of police should be sent to the justices of the county or the watch committee of the borough, who might address a statement relating thereto to the Secretary of State; and that in the event of his withholding the certificate, the grounds upon which he did so, and the objections of the justices or watch committee, should be laid before parliament.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, the proviso of the right hon. gentleman came so near to the suggestion he had made that he was quite satisfied with it.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE also observed that the objections which he entertained to the clause were very much removed by the proviso. At the same time, he thought the clause was one which there would be extreme difficulty in carrying out. He would not, however, put the committee to the trouble of dividing.
The amendment was then, by leave, withdrawn.
...