OUR respected Liberal
contemporary is still, from time to time delighted to act the prophet,
and to anticipate the introduction of this Whig abortion into
Lincolnshire, arguing in its favor on three points—decrease of
expense—decrease of crime—and approbation where it has been tried. We
beg to presen the advocates of this system a sample of the extracts from
the provincial press of the past week, which should be read and well
weighed.
We first draw on the columns of our talented contemporary, the
Northampton Herald, for the following report:—
On Wednesday, Jan. 5, a meeting of ratepayers of the several hundreds
in the Kettering District was held at the White Hart hotel, Kettering,
pursuant to advertisement, for the purpose of considering the propriety
of petitioning against the further continuance of the police force.
Between eight and ninety highly respectable rate-payers were present. At
one o'clock Mr. Wright Richards took the chair, and opened the business
of the meeting by observing that they were assembled for the purpose of
considering the propriety of petitioning against the further continuance
of the rural police. The several parishes in the Kettering District
appeared to be well represented by gentlemen around him, and he should
like to hear their opinions on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Wallace, of Rowell Lodge, said he considered the police
establishment a good one. The policemen had in some instances overacted
their parts, and conducted themselves improperly, but the establishment
itself was calculated, in his opinion, to be productive of much benefit
if it were properly regulated.
The Chairman said that in his opinion there were either too
many policemen or not enough. He was most favourable to the old system
of parish constables. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. Wallace replied, that the old parish constables were but
of little use. If a disturbance arose they were sure to get out of the
way; he would do so himself were he a parish constable.
(Disapprobation.)
Mr. Higgins, of Cransley, observed that with respect to
public-house rows, the parish constables were infinitely more useful
than the new police. The half-intoxicated villagers would disperse
quietly on the remonstrance of a neighbour, but the appearance of a
policeman incensed them, and the matter ended by their being brought
before a magistrate and prosecuted,—thus the county rates were
increased.— (Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. Thomas Newham, parish constable of Rowell, said that the new
police force might be valuable in manufacturing districts, but it
certainly was not in rural ones, as was exemplified in the parish of
Rowell. He (Mr. N.) and two of his neighbours could quell a disturbance
in Rowell in five minutes, in consequence of their personal knowledge of
the parties, while, if a policeman interfered, he would not be attended
to. There was no parish in Northamptonshire more peaceable than Rowell
before the arrival of a policeman amongst them, but they were never
quiet after he arrived. A superintendent of police also came to Rowell,
challenged his men to fight any in Rowell, and called the parish
constables a set of blackguards. (Hear, hear, hear.) The policeman had
since been removed to Desborough, and Rowell had daily experienced the
benefit of his removal.
Mr. Wallace said the superintendent ought to have been
reprimanded for such conduct.
Mr. Newham replied that he was reported and fined.
Mr. Wallace said he did not come there to defend the conduct
of the policemen, which he admitted was, in many instances, highly
improper, but to defend the police establishment.
Mr. Newham said he was convinced the police would cost the
parish of Rowell £50 a-year.—Mr Samuel Kilburn, of Desborough, on being
appealed to, said that since the establishment of a policeman amongst
them they had been nothing like so quiet.
[A letter was here read from Mr. Morris, of Broughton, containing an
account of the drunkenness of the policeman Rocheford in the middle of
the day on Sunday last, and concluded by saying that as he (Mr. M.)
considered the police an useless body, and entailing a heavy burden on
the county, he was induced to forward them this piece of information].
Mr. S. Taylor proposed the first resolution—"That it is the
opinion of this meeting that the police force has not answered the
purpose for which it was established, and that its further continuance
is deemed unnecessary." (Cheering.)
Mr Bagshaw, of Newton, seconded the proposition.
Mr. Wallace, 'amidst much laughter, proposed as an
amendment, that the force be continued, but that each member of it be a
staunch teetotaller.
The amendment finding no seconder, the original proposition was put
and carried,— there being only three dissentients.
Mr. Robinson, of Kettering, bore testimony to the efficiency
of the police, but many voices were raised in contradiction.
It was next proposed, and agreed to unanimously, that petitions
similar to the following be prepared, sent to each parish in the several
hundreds of the Kettering district, signed, and sent to the Justices in
Quarter Sessions assembled, praying them to concur in the prayer of the
petitioners.
"We, the undersigned, on behalf of the ratepayers of the parish of
......, beg to represent to the Worshipful the Justices of the Peace for
the county of Northampton, that we find the Police Rate to entail a
heavy and burdensome expense upon the ratepayers of the aforesaid
parish; that neither in the security of property, nor in any other way
have we been able to observe that we derive any advantage whatever from
the establishment of the police force in the district in which this
parish it situate; that, under these circumstances, we, the undersigned,
pray of the Magistrates to take into their serious consideration of the
expediency of affording relief to the ratepayers of the county by the
abolishment of the existing police force."
Mr. Newham put the question to the Chairman whether it would
not be advisable, as other petitions of a like kind had been adopted and
signed in different parts of the county, to send this with them to the
Quarter Sessions on Thursday.
The Chairman replied, that as the Rev. Mr. Litchfield's
motion would not be made until March next, he did not think it necessary
to present the petitions before then.
The meeting was then dissolved.
Lincolnshire Chronicle,
Friday 14 January 1842