HAMPSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS
These Sessions commenced on Monday, at the County Hall, Winchester …
THE CASE OF SUPERINTENDENT DORE.
A notice had been sent to the Clerk of the Peace signed by Vice-Admiral Sir Lucius Curtis, Spencer Smith, Esq., Colonel Le Blanc, J. Deverell, C. J. Gale, W. G. Higgins, R. R. Goodlad, H. Spencer, Esqrs., Dr. Haines Jones, Major Mundy, stating that one of them would at the sessions move for a committee to inquire into the circumstances under which Superintendent Charles Dore had been removed from the constabulary force, and the sum of 300l. paid to him. Mr. Deverell said he had been requested by the other gentlemen who had signed the notice to bring this case again before the Court, and he thought it would be necessary for the information of all not present (many of whom may not have been present at the last sessions) that he should state the whole circumstances under which Dore came to be removed. In the first place, in consequence of the Government dispensing with the rural police force in their pay at Aldershot, it became necessary to make a reduction of one superintendent in the force. Captain Forrest, the chief constable acting under the powers vested him by the Act of Parliament, thought fit to select Dore as the officer for removal, a man who had served the county for 19 years, a large portion of which time he had acted as superintendent. Dore had received (as Mr. Long had fully stated at the last Sessions) the best testimonials from the Magistrates of the Droxford bench, where he was located when dismissed; and there had never been any complaint whatever concerning his conduct the long period he had been in the service of the county. Dore had also received a letter from Captain Harris, in which that gentleman stated his perfect satisfaction with Dore’s conduct. He (Mr. D.) was the more anxious to bring this unfortunate superintendent’s case before the Court, inasmuch as some magistrates had intimated to him that had the facts which he stated as to Superintendent Martin (upon which one of the motions which was to follow was based) been stated previous to the decision of the Court at the last Sessions, Dore’s case would have been materially strengthened; he regretted that his forbearance on that occasion should have had such an effect. He had wished to act with the greatest delicacy in not attending to the increase of pay which had been given to Martin, and he had been impressed with the hope that the chief constable would perceive the grievous mistake he had committed, and would come forward and express an intention on his part to re-consider the matter, seeing that we are all liable to err in judgment, and that the wisest and best course when a mistake has been made is honestly to admit it, and rectify it. Superintendent Martin, was, he believed, a very good officer, and had left this county for Nottinghamshire. Soon after Capt. Forrest was appointed chief constable of this county he brought Martin back, and then it became necessary to reduce the officers of the force. Martin was of course the junior superintendent. In all military rules, and in services generally, it was considered the right course in reducing a staff of officials to remove the junior first; but Captain Forrest, instead of doing this, had selected Dore to be discharged—a man who had been 19 years in the service; indeed the chief constable had given an increased and an illegal allowance to the junior officer (Martin), and sent adrift the senior (Dore), to do the best he might with his family of nine children, all dependent on him except one. There was, as he (Mr. D.) was credibly informed, no recommendation in the first place that any gratuity should be given to Dore; but afterwards, apparently to cover the mistake that had been made, a gratuity was recommended by the chief constable. He (Mr. Deverell) did not question the right of Captain Forrest to make an arbitrary appointment—(Mr. Long had stated at the last sessions that the chief constable was a complete autocrat) —but, nevertheless, that officer’s conduct should at least be subject to public opinion, and he believed that at the present moment considerable anxiety was felt to whether the power vested in the chief constable should not be controlled. If he (Mr. D.) had correctly read the motion of the honourable member, Mr. Portal, which was to follow, he therein clearly discerned that there was a feeling in the county that too much power was exercised by the chief constable, and that some farther control was needed. The gratuity proposed to be given to Dore after his discharge, and actually granted in the shape of 300l., was altogether an illegal proceeding, and the order made by this Court could be quashed by the Court of Queen’s Bench, if any person interested in the fund moved for a certiorari in that Court. Being strongly impressed that such was the fact, he (Mr. D.) had laid the case before counsel and obtained an opinion which he would read to the Court. The gentleman from whom the opinion had been obtained was Mr. Powell, in high reputation in the Oxford Circuit, and its bearing was, that the grant of 300l. was clearly illegal, whether it was taken from the superannuation fund or otherwise. The document was to the following effect. It was clear, that Dore being neither 60 years of age, nor incapacitated by bodily or other infirmity, no gratuity could be legally given to him from the superannuation fund. Capt. Harris feeling for the poor man, had most benevolently interested himself on his behalf, and had procured him a situation as Superintendent in the Devon force, with a salary of 80l. a year; but Dore felt that he was out of his proper place, and was in continual dread of being cast upon the world with his large family, and nothing but his small gratuity to rely upon. This man ought not to be allowed to be sent adrift with his miserable pittance of 300l. The superintendents, and indeed the whole of the constabulary force, were looking anxiously at this case, and their confidence would be considerably shaken if they found that they could thus be arbitrarily removed from their situations. But whatever should be the result of the present application, there could be an appeal made to the government as it was quite time this despotic power was modified. There was a feeling in this Court, and in the County at large, that too much power was vested in the Chief Constable. If no redress could be obtained from the Court of Queen’s Bench, the question might be brought before the House of Commons, and he hoped Dore would have the support of the County Members. The fact of his having a family of nine children formed an element in this case of some importance, and when he (Mr. D.) learnt the particulars, he resolved to espouse his cause. The grant of the 300l. was clearly illegal, and it became the court, on discovering its error, to re-consider the whole matter from its commencement, and with the view of such consideration, he begged formally to move the resolution of which notice had been given.
Mr. Gale seconded the motion, arguing that the Court had exceeded their powers in granting the annuity.
The Earl of Carnarvon said the chief constable was fully justified in removing what officer he pleased, and that the Court had no authority to interpose, and he could not think that any injustice had been done to Dore.
The Chairman would allow there had been some irregularity in granting the gratuity, but he could not advise the Court to rescind the order. At the same time, he felt it his duty to state that the superannuation fund would not suffer from the gratuity which had been given. In the contract which the county made with Government the casual expenses had not been lost sight of, and there was a balance of more than 300l. in favour of the county, and therefore that sum might be fairly applied to a contingent like the present.
The Court then divided, when there appeared for the appointment of a committee 9, against it 28.
Mr. Portal moved that the order of the Court made at the last Michaelmas Sessions, relating to the pay of superintendents, be amended by substituting the words seven years’ continuous service for the words seven years’ service. As the Chairman of the Committee who recommended the order, he must say that the word ‟continuous” was intended, and it was in consequence of the chief constable giving the words a literal interpretation that he now proposed the amendment, which, having been seconded by Mr. Stanley, was agreed to.
Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday 02 July 1859
POLICE PAY
A formal motion, ‟That the order of court of Michaelmas sessions, 1858, relating to the increase of pay of superintendents of the constabulary be amended by substituting the words seven years’ continuous service for the words seven years’ service,” brought forward by Mr. M. Portal, was agreed to, that gentleman stating that the chief constable finding himself in error in granting Martin the increased allowance, had withdrawn it at once.