said, he could not get satisfactory information with regard to this Bill. He had asked a Question about it yesterday, but could not obtain a satisfactory reply. He had requested to be informed who were the sponsors for the Bill in the House, as there seemed to be no one promoting the measure whatever; but his query remained unanswered. Now, in 1879, the promoters of the Donegal Extension Bill obtained Parliamentary powers on condition that they made a railway within five years. Those promoters paid on deposit a sum of £3,275; but this, in 1884, was forfeited by reason of the non-performance of the conditions upon which the Bill was obtained. Now, after nine years had elapsed, some parties unknown to him came to that House and sought a Bill to obtain the repayment of this £3,275 already forfeited to the Treasury, and as one of those who came from the centre of the district that would have been largely benefited commercially by the railway, and as Chairman of the Town Commissioners in that locality who aided the promoters at that time to obtain the Bill, he thought it was only fair that he should be answered when he asked if all the necessary conditions had been fulfilled. The Chairman of Committees was the only person in the House who could give him any information yesterday, and, of course, that was not satisfactory. He wanted to know had the necessary notices been inserted in The Dublin Gazette, and he desired, also, to know whether any claim for compensation had been made, and if any payments had been made in respect of compensation? He also wished to ask to whom the money was to be repaid? One gentleman, Mr. McBirney, Dublin, who was connected with the promotion of the former Bill, and who, he (Mr. Jordan) was almost sure, had paid the whole of this £3,275 by way of deposit, was now dead. Another gentleman, Mr. Bloomfield, who was connected with the railway, and who had, he believed, paid no money by way of deposit, however, was alive, and he (Mr. Jordan) should not like to see the money go into the wrong hands. He should like to see it paid to the proper person—that was to say, to the heirs and succesors of that gentleman who had paid it originally in the form of a deposit. It was only fair, at any rate, that he (Mr. Jordan) should have information upon the subject, being interested in the part of the country to which the original Bill applied. He would move, if it were competent for him to do so, that the Resolution be reported upon this day three months.

I must remind the hon. Member that it is not competent for him to make that Motion. The hon. Member can move that the debate be now adjourned.

said, he did not wish to delay the Bill. All he wanted was some satisfactory information in the matter. It would be as well for him, perhaps, to move the adjournment of the dobate.

said, that if the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the debate, he would prevent him (Mr. Courtney) from giving him an answer. As to the Motion now before the House, he could satisfy the hon. Member and give him all the information he sought in the matter. The hon. Member had correctly stated the facts. This railway was one of the many projects sanctioned by Parliament, and subsequently abandoned. When Parliamentary powers were applied for, a deposit was paid in as an earnest that the railway construction was to be carried out, and in order to meet any claim which might arise in consequence of the action of the promoters of the Bill. That deposit, in the present instance, as the hon. Member had stated, owing to the non-fulfilment of the conditions upon which Parliamentary powers were given, was forfeited to the Crown. This Bill was a release on the part of the Crown of the money so forfeited. The hon. Gentleman wished to be assured as to whether any demands for compensation had been settled, and he also wished to be certain that the money would be paid to the persons rightly entitled to it. This Bill, which was in the strictest accordance with all previous measures dealing with such questions, released the claim of the Crown, and ordered the High Court in Dublin to pay the money deposited, subject first of all to the payment of all claims established against it to the persons who were entitled to it, and who paid the money in the first instance, or to their survivor or survivors. The first thing the High Court did in a case of this kind was to advertise for any claims, and when claims were established, after a certain interval there was a settlement, and the Court proceeded to distribute the money to those entitled to it. Whatever guarantees the hon. Member wished to have rested with the High Court, which followed the ordinary course in regard to sums paid into Court, first in advertising for claims, then in examining those claims, and paying those which were genuine, and, subsequently, in paying the remaining money to those entitled to it.

(for Mr. T. M. HEALY) (Longford, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Does Mr. Hamilton, R.M., deny that any investigations in furtherance of the secret inquiry he was holding at Falcarragh, County Donegal, in respect of the alleged conspiracy against Mr. Olpherts, a local landlord, were conducted in Mr. Olpherts' house by Detective Reeves, who accompanies and assists Mr. Hamilton R.M.; were Thomas Carr, Alexander Wilson, and James Lindsay examined in Mr. Olpherts' library by Detective Reeves in presence of Mr. Olpherts and his son, or were they questioned at all by Reeves; and, if so, by whose authority and under what legal process; was Thomas Carr asked why Mr. Olpherts found it impossible to have his pigs conveyed last month to Derry Market, and James Lindsay whether he was told that Mr. Hugh Boyle, grocer, Falcarragh, refused to fetch a little box to Derry for Mr. Olpherts; was Brian M'Callin, a labourer in Mr. Olpherts' employment, taken from his work to the library, and by Reeves asked his name, his residence, whether Hugh Boyle, grocer, Falcarragh, refused in his presence to carry to Derry for Mr. Olpherts a certain box, and whether he had any information to give; whether, as this examination had not the desired result, M'Callin was told to go, Reeves remarking to Mr. Olpherts that there was no use in bringing that man up; and, whether Mr. Hugh Boyle, the grocer who was alleged by Reeves to have refused to carry for Mr. Olpherts, was then summoned before Mr. Hamilton, R.M., at the secret inquiry, and sent to gaol for refusing to answer?

The Resident Magistrate does deny the allegation contained in the first paragraph of the Question. District Inspector Reeves reports that the inquiries he made of Mr. Olpherts' three servants named, related entirely to the Boycotting of that gentleman, which was not embraced in the Resident Magistrate's inquiry. He did see these servants in Mr. Olpherts' house. Mr. Olpherts and his son were not present. The District Inspector acted in the discharge of his duty. Hugh Boyle is a public carrier, also a grocer, in the neighbourhood; and it was in regard to alleged refusals on his part to carry goods for Mr. Olpherts that District Inspector Reeves made inquiries of Carr and Lindsay. He likewise questioned M'Callin. He did not, however, say there was no use in bringing him up. Hugh Boyle was examined as a witness before the Resident Magistrate touching the Plan of Campaign; and refusing to answer questions he could have answered in regard to that conspiracy, was committed to prison.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was by direction, and with the knowledge of the magistrates, that Mr. Reeves held the inquiry; and I wish to know if the Government have a right to hold a private and unsworn inquiry in a private house, preliminary to the statutory inquiry at the Petty Sessions Court-house before the Magistrates?

It is certainly in the power, and it is the duty, of a police officer to make inquiries when a crime has been committed. This is not a preliminary inquiry under Section 1 of the Crimes Act, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. It is quite clear that the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) entirely confused two different inquiries which were going on at the same time, or nearly at the same time.

Were the witnesses who were examined by Reeves at Mr. Olpherts' house afterwards summoned to the sworn inquiry, and questioned on the same affairs?

He was not questioned on the same affairs. Boyle was alleged to be guilty of two separate offences—one was Boycotting Mr. Olpherts. The other subject on which he was supposed to be able to give evidence was the Plan of Campaign. He was examined on one point by the police officer, and on the other by the magistrate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state under what authority, either in this country or in Ireland, have police officers a right to hold such an inquiry?

I understand it was the universal practice both in this country and in Ireland.

inquired on what authority the right hon. Gentleman said Boyle could answer questions about the Plan of Campaign?

I have no doubt he could have done so.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is able to state that such arrangements have now been made with Sir Charles Warren, the Chief Commissioner of Police, as to ensure proper control and supervision in and around the Regent's Park, with a view to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful scenes which have for some time past taken place there; if he proposes to have the vacant grass land between Gloucester Gate and the North Gate properly enclosed, or to adopt other means for public security and the prevention of misconduct within the area of the Park; and, if he will define the relative position of the "Woods and Forests," the "Department of Works," and the police, with reference to the Park and roads, and state the Acts of Parliament under which their duties are respectively carried out?

The Chief Commissioner of Police has made certain alterations in the system of patrolling the roads in Regent's Park, which have, I believe, ensured a better control of disorderly persons; and I have put myself in communication with the Crown Estates Paving Commissioners, with a view to improving the lighting of the Inner Circle—a change which I am assured by the Police Authorities will greatly assist them in the performance of their duties. The enclosing of the grass land between Gloucester Gate and the North Gate would, I think, prevent a considerable amount of misconduct in that part of the Park; and I have applied to the Treasury to sanction the necessary expense of such enclosure. As to the third paragraph of the Question, I am afraid I can not add much to the definition which I gave in answer to my hon. Friend on the 7th of this month, except to say that the Acts of Parliament on which that definition rests are, as regards the position of the Woods and Forests and the Department of Works, the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 42, secs. 22 & 23; as regards the duties of the Metropolitan Police within Regent's Park the 35 & 36 Vict., c. 15, secs. 7 & 8.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John R. Guy, a bankrupt, was within the past year tried and convicted by a jury on a charge of concealment of property and other offences against the Bankruptcy Act, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment; whether he was released by order of the Lord Lieutenant after a few weeks' imprisonment; whether Thomas Moroney has been now confined in prison for more than a year, without any trial or conviction, on a commitment by the Judge for unsatisfactory answering in the Bankruptcy Court; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant will order the release of Thomas Moroney as well as of John R. Guy?

, in reply, said, John R. Guy was released by direction of the Lord Lieutenant upon the medical officer's Report that further confinement would endanger his life. There did not appear to be any ground to apprehend that further imprisonment would endanger the life of Thomas Moroney, and the Lord Lieutenant had, therefore, no power to interfere.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether several Orders in Council under the Irish Tramways Acts were passed more than two years ago, which the promoters have never since taken out, and on which the required deposits of 5 per cent on the estimates of the works have not been paid; whether the lines so sanctioned are mostly narrow gauge with excessively steep gradients, similar to the Skull and Skibbereen Tramway, which has proved a complete failure; whether the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works has reported against this class of tramways and against the adoption of any but the standard Irish railway guage; whether serious liabilities are entailed on the ratepayers should the promoters fail to complete and work the lines once their construction has been commenced; and, whether, in view of the foregoing cir- cumstances, the Privy Council will at once cancel all Tramway Orders which have been lying over for a considerable time, and have not been taken up, and on which the deposits have not been paid?

There are five cases in which Committees of the Privy Council more than two years ago recommended Orders under the Tramways Acts, and in which the promoters have failed to take further action. Two of the lines so recommended were of the narrow guage. There are no Orders to be cancelled, as no such Orders have been made. If Orders should be applied for in cases which have been lying over for a considerable time, the Privy Council, before proceeding further with them, would no doubt take into consideration the lapse of time and other circumstances which have occurred since the lines were recommended and see that no injustice is done.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, On what grounds the Metropolitan Board of Works have changed their original intention of proceeding at once with the vehicular tunnel at Black-wall; when does the Board expect to be able to commence the vehicular tunnel; how long will it take to complete the foot tunnel; and, what is the estimated cost?

In answer to the hon. Member's first Question, I must refer him to my answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Tower Hamlets, Bow Division (Sir John Colomb). The Board will be ready to enter into the first contract as soon as the question of re-housing the artizans displaced on the north approach has been decided by the Home Secretary, to whom an early application will be made to allow of re-housing in adjoining workmen's houses and unoccupied artizans' dwellings, constructed on surplus land sold by the Board. The general plans have to be approved by the Thames Conservancy, the Dock and Railway Companies, and they will be laid before them within 10 days. The Board's engineer advises us the first tunnel will be complete in 12 months from date of commencement. The estimate from drawings will not be made until their general approval.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether application has been made on behalf of the National Gallery Trustees for the renewal of the grant of £10,000 to the Gallery for the purchase of pictures; whether any reply has been received; and, whether he would have any objection, when complete, to lay a copy of this Correspondence upon the Table?

The House is familiar with the arrangement concluded in 1885, on the occasion of the purchase of two pictures from the Blenheim Collection for £87,500. In assenting to the expenditure of this very large sum of money the then Board of Treasury intimated to the Trustees of the National Gallery that the ordinary purchase grant of £10,000 a-year would be suspended for some years, and this decision was made known to Parliament. At the same time, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) expressed his readiness to consider favourably any proposal of the Trustees should any exceptionally advantageous opportunity occur of acquiring works of a representative character, and of a school or period of which examples are wanting in the Gallery. Since 1885 several applications have been made by the Trustees for a renewal of the purchase grant; but, so far as I have had to deal with them, I have said frankly that I was not prepared to depart from the arrangement made in 1885. I consider that continuity of policy is indispensable in such matters, on pain of Parliament never putting faith in declarations of intention made by the Executive Government; and so I have refused to entertain applications for a renewal of the annual grant.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Correspondence on the Table?

said, he thought that no public advantage would be served by doing so. Such a practice was likely to lead to the members of Departments adopting a controversial style of correspondence instead of writing in a business-like manner.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of new licences granted, and of old licences renewed, or refused to be renewed, by the Licensing Justices during each year since the passing of "The Licensing Act, 1874" (No. 338, August, 1883); in continuation of that Return to the end of 1887, and in reference to every licence refused renewal, to state whether the licence has one, two, or three endorsements, or none; and also showing the number of licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors owned by brewers and distillers?

(who replied) said: In accordance with the promise made on the 14th of May, the Home Office is endeavouring to obtain information as to the number of victuallers', beer-house, and other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the renewal of which has been refused in the year 1886 and four preceding years by the Justices of each Licensing District, showing in each case the ground of refusal, especially when such ground was, in any instance, that the licence was not required, and showing also the result of appeal, if any. Pending this Return the Government could not assent to a Motion for the Return suggested by the hon. Member. It would be impossible to obtain information as to the number of licences owned by brewers.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in an examination paper on arithmetic set at an open competition for female clerkships held in March, 1888, the following question was put:—

"4. Express 15, 35, 63, and 72 as decimals of their least common multiple. If the product of these decimals be multiplied by the cube of the least common multiple of the given numbers and divided by their greatest common measure, show that the result is unity. Explain the reason of this in general terms without attempting the full numerical calculation;"

whereas the result ought to have been 945 and not unity; whether any steps were taken to inform the competitors of the error in the question; and, whether he will call the attention of the Civil Service Commissioners to this case, with a view to the prevention of similar mistakes, which must tend to embarrass competitors?

(1) The question was given as stated above; (2) the error was not discovered in time to allow all candidates to be informed of the alteration that should be made, and therefore no candidate was informed of' it; (3) the answers to this question were specially examined a second time to obviate any possibility of hardship; and (4) the Civil Service Commissioners do their utmost to prevent the occurrence of errors; but in all examination papers there must be a possibility, however carefully guarded against, of mistakes being made.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will consent to allow the Trawling (Scotland) Bill to be read a second time on the understanding that a Proviso will be inserted in Committee authorising the Fishery Board, with the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, to make orders from time to time authorising beam trawling in specified areas in cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Fishery Board that such trawling will not be injurious to the industry of the line fishermen?

The Government are not prepared to assent to the course proposed by the hon. Member. The question is one which should be dealt with in a Government Bill and not in a Bill brought in by a private Member. The Government are not prepared to take action at present.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to introduce a short Bill, or otherwise give effect to the following recommendations of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea:—

"That a simple professional examination should be required for the rating of boatswains and carpenters; that seamen with the rating of A.B. should be required to have continuous records of their services; and that advance notes should be legalised, but strictly limited in all cases to the advance of one month's wages?"

, in reply, said he had given directions for clauses to be drawn dealing with the three Recommendations to which his hon. Friend referred. He proposed to circulate those clauses among the Associations and other persons connected with shipping; and if the replies he received were so generally favourable as to lead him to imagine that legislation on the subject would be non-contentious, he would try to find an opportunity for it this year; otherwise, he feared it would not be possible to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the fresh evidence has yet been forthcoming against Mr. John Mara, detained on remand by Mr. Newton on the charge of picking pockets, made against him on June 2 by two detectives; if he could state what was the evidence on which Mr. Mara was arrested and remanded; what is the nature of the expected evidence for which he is detained, who are the witnesses for whom the police are now searching, and have they yet been found; if they are not yet found, how long a time is it customary to detain prisoners on suspicion of committing a crime against whom no evidence justifying committal or conviction is forthcoming; on what ground did Mr. Newton refuse the bail that has already been tendered; is there any limit to the powers of the police to arrest on suspicion; if so, what are those limits; is there any limit to the powers of a police magistrate to remand waiting further evidence; and, will he lay upon the Table of the House the notes of the evidence given in Mr. Newton's Court at Marlborough Street in this case?

I am informed by the magistrate that the case will be further heard to-morrow. Mara was remanded on evidence which, in the opinion of the magistrate, made out a primâ facie case of attempting to pick the pockets of ladies at a crossing in Hyde Park. The magistrate does not know the nature of the evidence which will be given to-morrow. He informs me that it is customary to detain a prisoner charged with an offence of this nature until all the evidence is heard. The magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, refused bail after hearing the evidence. The police have by statute the power to arrest any person whom they have good cause to suspect of having committed, or being about to commit, a felony. The power to remand is entirely within the magistrate's discretion. I must decline to lay the notes of evidence on the Table of the House, as the hon. Member will feel that it would be most improper that the House of Commons should interfere with the discretion of a magistrate in dealing with a part-heard case in a Court of criminal jurisdiction.

asked, on what ground the magistrate had refused bail?

said, it was in the exercise of his discretion.

gave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday.

(for Sir RICHARD TEMPLE) (Worcester, Evesham) asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will exempt the School Board for London from any liability under the Local Government Bill to have its duties and responsibilities transferred to the London County Council?

(who replied) said: There is no intention on the part of the Government that the duties and responsibilities of the School Board for London should be transferred to the London County Council; and when Clause 8 of the Local Government Bill is reached in Committee, the Government will be quite prepared to consider any Amendment with the view of showing clearly that no such arrangement may be made under the clause.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in the County Electors Act of May 16, 1888, Clause 6, Section 1, the date fixed for sending in declarations—namely, September 5, applies to boroughs and counties for Parliamentary and Municipal Registers as well as to the new County Registers, or whether the date which has hitherto been fixed—namely, September 12, will remain the last day for sending in declarations for Parliamentary elections?

, in reply, said, that Section 6 (1) of the County Electors Act made September 5 the last day for sending in declarations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether on February 24, 1888, he approved an addition to the by-laws of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under which additional by-law the collections for the Hospital Sunday Fund have since been prevented on the open spaces under the control of the Board; whether he is aware that one prosecution has been actually commenced, and other prosecutions are now being threatened by the Metropolitan Board of Works, against working men and others for making collections on such open spaces in connection with otherwise lawful public objects; whether he will state to the House the facts on which his decision to create this new offence was based; whether public collections have been for more than 40 years made on the open spaces of the Metropolis for political, social, and pub- lic charitable objects; and, whether he will state any cases of evil resulting therefrom?

Yes, Sir; at the time named I did approve a by-law prohibiting persons from soliciting or gathering money in certain Parks and open spaces from persons frequenting the same. I have not been able to ascertain at present whether the Hospital Sunday Fund collection has been prevented under this by-law. I am informed by the Board that in two or three cases the names of the offenders have been taken, the Board awaiting the result of the case now pending before a magistrate. In 1887 complaint was made to the Board by a ratepayer that the practice of soliciting money after meetings was being abused. A Committee of the Board thereon made inquiry; and they found reason to believe that certain persons availed themselves of the permission to hold public meetings for the sake of collecting money for their own purposes, and made a living by it. I cannot say whether collections have been made for more than 40 years in the open spaces of the Metropolis; but I am informed by the Board that it has not until recently been the practice in the Parks under their control. The Board do not allege any evil result beyond annoyance of which members of the public complained; and they proposed the by-law with the view of protecting the public from the abuse to which the practice was liable.

asked the Home Secretary, whether he was aware that under this by-law the Sunday music provided by the Sunday League in the Parks would be absolutely stopped, as no collections could be made?

inquired whether, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, it would be for the public benefit to stop the collection for this music?

said, that he had given all the information in his possession to the House. The practice had grown up quite recently in the Parks under the control of the Board. He would inquire whether any evils had resulted from these public collections.

asked whether, as a matter of ordinary law, persons could not be prosecuted if they asked for money for private purposes?

said, that he never attempted to solve questions of ordinary law with the hon. Member.

asked, what was the custom with regard to those Parks which were not under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works?

said, that he was not aware, but would inquire.

asked whether, in view of the fact that disturbance might probably arise from the carrying out of this by-law, he would order that these prosecutions should be discontinued where the collection had been made for a bonâ fide political meeting?

said, he was afraid it was beyond his power to make such an order.

said, that as this was a matter affecting the whole of the Metropolis, and as these collections had been made for a period of over 30 years, he should, in the event of obtaining no more satisfactory answer on Monday, move the adjournment of the House, to call attention to the subject as a matter of urgent public importance.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that on the 2nd of May last a Resolution was carried by the Board making the expenses of the erection a Divisional instead of a Union charge; and, whether the Local Government Board will insist on the Guardians furthering the construction of suitable dwellings for the poor labourers at this the most suitable time of the year for building?

I shall now reply to the Question in the form in which it appeared on yesterday's paper. It is the fact that the erection of 157 cottages has been authorized in the Fermoy Union; 13 cottages, authorized by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament in 1884, have been built; 144 others were authorized by Provisional Order made in June, 1887; but none of these have yet been built. The latter Order became absolute in October last, and an arbitrator was appointed by the Board of Works in February last; but the arbitration proceedings necessarily took some time. The Board of Guardians originally made the whole Rural Sanitary District the area of charge, and it was accordingly so fixed by the Provisional Order of 1887. Such a resolution as that referred to was passed by the Guardians in May last, but it was inoperative inasmuch as the Guardians have no power to alter an area of charge determined by a Provisional Order which has become absolute. Under the circumstances, the Local Government Board cannot take any steps with the view of compelling the Guardians to hasten their proceedings in the case.

asked Mr. Attorney General Whether there is any foundation for the suggestion which has appeared in the public Press, in reference to an impending action against The Times, to the effect that the Government have placed at his disposal information respecting the Irish Members of this House which is in the possession of the Government?

I have not seen, nor have I any knowledge of, any suggestion or statements which have appeared in the Press. The hon. Member must, I think, be aware that I should be guilty of gross breach of duty if I were, directly or indirectly, to answer this Question, or to make any statement respecting it from which any inference, direct or indirect, could be drawn.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not under a similar obligation; and I would ask him if the Government have placed at the disposal of the Attorney General, for the purposes of a private action, any real or imaginary information?

I absolutely decline to give any information whatever,

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that a Protocol was signed in Santiago, on the 11th of April last, between Senor Don Augusto Mattè, Chilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Hugh Fraser, Esq., Her Majesty's Minister, resident in Chili, relating to the terms of a contract known as the Grace-Aranîbar Contract, recently entered into between the Peruvian Bondholders Committee and the Government of Peru; if it is a fact that in that Protocol it is clearly represented that Chili will submit to no departure from the terms of her Treaty of Peace with Peru, and that Mr. Fraser, in signing the Protocol, assented thereto; whether, since the said Protocol was signed, Her Majesty's Government has received any other proposals in writing from the Chilian Government for a settlement of the claims of Peruvian bondholders; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House the said Protocol, and the other proposals, if any, of the Chilian Government?

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this Question. On the 12th of April last Mr. Fraser announced that the Chilian Government had made confidential proposals to Her Majesty's Government for the amendment of the Articles of the Grace-Aranîbar Contract to which they had taken exception, and also proposals for the settlement of the claims of the bondholders against Chili. These proposals, so far as relates to the contract, have been transmitted in the form of a Protocol, which was signed by Her Majesty's Minister at Santiago ad referendum; and the Chilian Government, in a separate document, have submitted certain bases of arrangement for a combined settlement of the bondholders' claims on Chili and Peru. The proposals, being confidential, cannot be laid on the Table.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he was in a position to give the House the substance of any cable messages received from Australia embodying the result of the Conference at Sydney on the Chinese question?

In answer to the hon. Member I will read to the House a telegram which has been received this morning from the Governor of New South Wales, reporting the result of the Conference held at Sydney. The telegram is as follows:—

"14th June.—At the Australasian Conference held in Sydney on the 12th, 13th, and 14th instant, at which the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia were represented, the question of Chinese immigration, and your cablegram to the Governor of South Australia in connection therewith, were fully considered. The members of the Conference are sensible of the wish of Her Majesty's Government to meet the views of the Colonies, and have specially deliberated upon the possibility of securing legislation which, while effective, should be of a character so far as possible in accordance with the feeling and views of the Chinese Government. They have not overlooked the political and commercial interests of the Empire, nor the commercial interests of the Colonies. In 1886 the total exports to China from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania were valued at £16,000, out of a total export trade amounting to £38,700,000. Our imports from China in the same year were valued at £846,000. While the custom of the Colonies, therefore, is very valuable to China, that country offers no present outlet of importance for Australasian trade. There has never been any attempt on the part of any of the Colonies to close their markets to the imports of the Chinese Empire, although most if not all of them are now produced in great quantities in the British Empire of India. The suggestion that any restrictions which are to be imposed should be of a general nature, so as to give power to exclude European or American immigrants, has been very carefully deliberated upon, but no scheme for giving effect to it has been found practicable. As the length of time to be occupied in negotiations between the Imperial Government and the Government of China is uncertain, and as the Colonies, in the meantime, have reason to dread a large influx from China, the several Governments feel impelled to legislate immediately to protect their citizens against an invasion which is dreaded because of its results, not only upon the labour market, but upon the social and moral condition of the people. At the same time, the Conference is most anxious that Her Majesty's Government should enter into communication with the Government of China with a view to obtaining, as soon as possible, a Treaty under which all Chinese, except officials, travellers, merchants, students, and similar classes should be entirely excluded from the Australasian Colonies. By way of assisting to bring about such an understanding, the Conference has recommended the abolition of the poll tax now levied upon Chinese immigrants, While believing that the local legislation now proposed will accomplish its object, the Colonies would prefer that the exclusion of the Chinese should be brought about by international agreement of a friendly nature, as in the case of the United States. The Conference further desires that Her Majesty's Government should induce the Governments of the Crown Colonies of Hong Kong, Straits Settlements, and Labuan to at once prohibit the emigration of all Chinese to the Australasian Colonies, unless they should belong to the classes above mentioned. The Chinese who may claim to be considered British subjects in those Colonies are very numerous, and the certainty that their migration hither was prevented would give great and general satisfaction. The Resolutions arrived at by the Conference, and which have been embodied in a draft Bill, are as follows:—

1. That, in the opinion of this Conference, the further restriction of Chinese immigration is essential to the welfare of the people of Australasia.

2. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired restriction can best be secured through the diplomatic action of the Imperial Government and by uniform Australasian legislation.

3. That this Conference resolves to consider a joint representation to the Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining the desired diplomatic action.

4. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired Australasian legislation should contain the following provisions:—

(1.) That it shall apply to all Chinese, with specified exceptions.

(2.) That the restriction should be by limitation of the number of Chinese which any vessel may bring into any Australian port to one passenger to every 500 tons of the ship's burthen.

(3.) That the passage of Chinese from one Colony to another without consent of the Colony which they enter be made a misdemeanour.

The first and fourth Resolutions were indorsed by all the Colonies except Tasmania, who dissented, and Western Australia, who did not vote; while the second and third were carried unanimously. As a whole, therefore, they faithfully represent the opinion of the Parliaments and peoples of Australia.

In conclusion, the Conference would call attention to the fact that the treatment of Chinese in the Australian Colonies has been invariably humane and considerate; and that, in spite of the intensity of popular feeling during the recent sudden influx, good order has been everywhere maintained.

In so serious a crisis the Colonial Governments have felt called upon to take strong and decisive action to protect their peoples; but in so doing they have been studious of Imperial interests, of international obligations, and of their reputation as law-abiding communities. They now confidently rely upon the support and assistance of Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to prevent their country from being overrun by an alien race, who are incapable of assimilation in the body politic, strangers to our civilization, out of sympathy with our aspirations, and unfitted for our free institutions, to which their presence in any number would be a source of constant danger."

said, the duty had been cast upon the Local Government Board of fixing the number of County Councillors for each county. The printed proposals of the Government were entirely provisional. He would be perfectly prepared to consider any representations made to him on the subject.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given private notice. It is this—Whether his attention has been directed to the statement made as to 11 prisoners who were arrested under the Coercion Act in Loughrea on the day before yesterday, and detained for one night in the Bridewell. The statement is—

"That we protest against the treatment that we have received since our arrest. We were taken from our beds at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning and marched to the police barrack, where we were detained until 2 o'clock, when we were taken over to the Petty Sessions Court, and forced to listen to the reading of depositions until 6 o'clock, when our application for bail was refused, and we were committed to Loughrea Bridewell—we consisting of 11 men—where there is only accommodation for three, and where even the beds of these three were almost wet, and quite filthy. In the interests of those who may be committed to gaol we feel bound to make this protest."

I wish to know whether there is any truth in this protest; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to ascertain if there is truth in this statement of treatment, endangering the lives of these men; and, further, I wish to ask him whether he can furnish any information to the House as to a collision which took place yesterday in the town of Loughrea between the people and the police, at which some 30 people are said to have been injured?

I only got Notice of the Question when I came down to the House at 2 o'clock. I immediately telegraphed to Dublin; but I have received as yet no information on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any security—as this is a matter which may affect the lives of these men, and as the offence with which they are charged is a trivial one—can he give the House any assurance that, if the facts turn out to be true, he will take some steps to see that these people are not injured?

Of course, Sir, the Irish Government will, in this as in every other case, do all they can to secure the proper treatment of prisoners.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have received information of the death this morning, at a quarter past 11, of His Majesty the German Emperor. It will be my duty, on Monday, to move an Address to the Crown and to the Empress of Germany, expressing the deep sorrow and concern of this House at the calamity which has overtaken the Royal Family and the people of Germany.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, I have only to say how deeply all sections of this House associate themselves with the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, and with the grief that is felt at an event which is not only an affliction to this country, in consequence of the connection of the late Emperor of Germany with the Royal Family of England, but which, I am sure, is felt to be an irreparable loss by all the nations of the civilized world.

said, that before the Bill was read a third time he should like to have some explanation or assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in reference to the question of annuities in the Bill. The market price of 3 per cent was taken as the basis for calculating annuities, and he thought the House ought to have some information in regard to the annuities under the Trustee Savings Banks Act. He held in his hand a Return from the National Debt Commissioners made on the 11th of May, 1888, and it would be found that the value of the assets, according to Acts of Parliament, differed, being fixed in one at £47,944,217, and by the other at £45,853,108, and showing a large deficiency. That deficiency would have to be met by the Commissioners of the National Debt, and he should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the effect of the present Bill would be upon the deficit.

said, he had mentioned this Bill yesterday, but he wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that if it was in any way inconvenient he would not press for the information he had then asked for. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give it before the end of the Session. He (Sir William Harcourt) wanted to know what measures had been taken in reference to the Debt which was still unconverted? There was, however, another matter upon which he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to the Bill. Great changes had now been made in the position of the National Debt. The Treasury had been good enough, in reply to his Motion, to give a Paper containing some fuller information as to past transactions in reference to the Debt than had been given before; but what appeared to him to be desirable and perfectly feasible was that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—as a Department of the State—should make an Annual Report of their transactions, just as the Post Office, the Inland Revenue, and the Customs did. It was a Department comprising many officers, and supported at considerable expense, and it was only experts and those who understood these most complicated matters who were able to give information upon them. The transactions were of an extremely complicated character, and there ought to be a Report presented year by year. He would go further, and he should like to have the history of what had been done with reference to the Debt since the great war in 1815. He believed there were ample materials for compiling such a history, and it was certainly information that ought to be in the hands of the public. He would, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) would hold out a prospect of making this an interesting feature in connection with the reform of the Debt in which the right hon. Gentleman's own career would take a distinguished part.

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, he wished to put a question as to the reduction of interest in connection with the Post Office Savings Banks. The margin of profit made by the Post Office Savings Banks was now very small; and as the reduction of interest on Consols would convert that profit into a loss, he would like to know when it was intended to reduce the rate of interest payable by the Post Office Banks; and whether it should not be reduced at the same time as that of the Trustee Savings Banks?

In answer to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), the point he has raised is one of considerable interest, but really it is not touched by the provisions of the present Bill. The annuities dealt with by the present Bill are annuities to be granted after the passing of the Act. If the hon. Member desires further in- formation as to the deficiency in the Trustee Savings Banks fund, of course I shall have to prepare to give it. With reference to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Notts (Mr. W. Beckett) as to the reduction to be made in the interest upon the deposits in Post Office Savings Banks, it is clear that the rate of interest will have to be reduced. The same kind of measure will have to be applied to the Post Office Savings Banks as I was compelled to suggest in the case of the Trustee Savings Banks. I cannot say the precise date or the precise form in which the change will be made, but it is a question which must claim the early attention of the Government. It is extremely difficult to deal with all these matters at the same moment, as all of them involve questions of great complexity, and must be approached with the greatest care, in order to prevent injustice. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I may say that I am at present engaged in considering the best means of dealing with the amount still outstanding from the conversion. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of stating that the amount of Consols which is still outstanding is £40,467,771, and the amount of Reduced is £6,009,968, making a total of £46,477,739. These are the latest figures I have been able to obtain, and the reduction is still going on, as the conversion is still open to those residing at considerable distances. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, all I can say is that it is in contemplation to have that Report made annually by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. It is extremely desirable to place clear and precise information upon all these matters before the House, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I will do what I can in the way of making further improvements in the statement of the National Debt, and in simplifying, as far as I can, what I admit are, in their present form, somewhat complicated figures. I will also consider to what extent the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman can be carried out by issuing an exhaustive Report of the history of the National Debt during a course of years. Of course, I have very able assistance in producing such a Report, and I am quite sure that Sir Rivers Wilson, the Controller General, will give his best attention to the undertaking.

said, he believed that such a Paper would be a most interesting document. He hoped that it would be issued in such a form that those who wished to compare the state of the National Debt now with what it was in other years would have no difficulty in doing so.

I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, because it sometimes involves difficult matters when we undertake to make comparisons in a Return of this kind, and might throw the subject into some confusion. Therefore, I cannot bind myself as to the form in which the Return shall be made, or how far it will follow the form of the Return of the proceedings of the National Debt Commissioners. It is a difficult task to adjust the figures in such a way as both to have a comparative and statistical interest and not to avoid confusing the public mind to a certain extent. I will examine the point, and, if it is desirable, will see that the document is reprinted.

said, he hoped that the Annual Return which was called by his name, and which he had moved for at the request of the Treasury for many years, would be continued, although, perhaps, another column might be added to it.

said, he hoped that the Government would take this opportunity of the reduction of the interest in the Post Office Savings Banks to devise some scheme by which indirect pressure would be brought to bear upon the holders of deposits to induce them to become larger holders of Consols, in order to get as large a number of persons as possible interested in the National Debt of the country.

I entirely sympathize with the object of the hon. Member, and I think the House will sympathize with it also. It is extremely desirable that the depositors in Post Office Savings Banks should become large owners of Consols. I am glad to say that the number is increasing, and I will endeavour to formulate a plan by which it may continue to increase.

said, he was not sure that he was quite in Order; but he wished to ask, with regard to the interest to be allowed in the case of Savings Banks, whether it was the object of the Government to assimilate Post Office Savings Banks and the National Securities Savings Banks, so that the interest in both cases should be as far as possible the same?

said, he wished to know whether, in dealing with the interest of the Trustee Savings Banks, any steps would be taken to prevent the wrongful use of the name of the Government?

The hon. Member should be aware that there is a Committee about to be appointed to inquire into the management of Trustee Savings Banks, and one of the questions with which they will have to deal—in regard to which I shall put a Notice on the Paper this evening—is the description which is sometimes given of these banks, and which occasionally involves to some extent the deception of the public. In reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), I did not say that the amount of interest would be precisely the same in the Trustee Savings Banks as in the Post Office Savings Banks; but the relative rates will be maintained as they are now, there being a reduction of ¼ per cent in both cases.

said, that before his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) moved the first Amendment on the Paper he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentle- man the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to the wording of the second line of this clause. He did so in no hostile sense, but with a view of securing that the drafting of the Bill should be improved. The clause spoke of "the administrative business of the justices of the county." He thought that that was a new phrase in legislation. It was certainly a very slip-shod phrase, if he might use the word, and it would be very difficult to devise what the transference of administrative business precisely meant. He would suggest the substitution of the words "jurisdiction and power," phrases with which they were perfectly familiar.

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having called his attention to the matter, but he would rather not make any alteration then. He would, however, consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

, in moving, in page 3, line 7, to insert as a paragraph—

"The preparation and revision of a basis or standard for the county rate, which, with such additions and modifications as may be necessary, shall be the basis or standard for all rates in the county,"

said, in moving that Amendment, he could not understand why Clause 5 provided that in relation to the preparation or revision of a basis or standard for the county rate, or in relation to appeals by any overseers or persons against that or any other rate, should be retained in the hands of the Justices, and not transferred with the other powers to the County Council. The rating question in the counties was a very big one, and he did not think it should continue on its present basis. The state of assessment and valuation in the counties was extremely unsatisfactory. What they wanted to arrive at was a uniform system of valuation and assessment. He was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew that there had been many unsatisfactory incidents connected with the present system. Some residences were said to be so spacious and splendid that it was impossible to fix the assessment, because not letable. The right hon. Gentleman would also be aware that there had been cases where the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions had himself appealed against the assessment made by the Committee of the Union, and had got it reduced. He maintained that the ideal at which they should aim was the Metropolitan model. He was not very proud of the way in which the government of the Metropolis had been administered, but the system, as a rule, was good. Under the Act of 1869 there was a quinquennial valuation, so that every five years the whole property of the Metropolis was revalued, and the rateable value fairly represented the property of the Metropolis, while the contributions to the rates kept abreast with the wealth of the community. Perhaps he might be allowed to point out how the system worked, because he thought it would be generally appreciated. Every five years there was a revaluation; the overseers' forms were filled up as to the rent and terms of holding, and the occupier had notice of increase or decrease, and could appeal to the Assessment Committee. The surveyor of taxes was always present, and had such large powers that he could insist on his own value being taken, so as to make unfairness or jobbery almost impossible. Of course, there were provisions for intermediate valuations between the quinquennial periods. When any property was rated for the first time or the assessment increased, it was placed in a provisional list by the overseers, and notice of the increase in the value was given to the owner, who could object, if he chose, and go before the Assessment Committee. Then, if he were not satisfied with the decision of the Assessment Committee, he could carry the case still further and appeal to the Assessment Sessions, and thence to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Assessment Committee inserted the new rateable value in a supplemental list, which, together with all other lists, was taken into consideration when the quinquennial valuation was made. The advantage of this system, he thought everybody would admit, was obvious, especially in regard to the application of the Schedule to the Act of 1869, under which there was a certain fixed proportion deducted from the gross value, sometimes amounting to a sixth, sometimes a fifth, and sometimes a fourth. He believed that it would be impossible to obtain an equal and regular system of assessment upon valuation except under some provision of this kind and he, therefore, moved the Amendment which stood in his name.

said, he had been somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member refer to the work of the Assessment Committee as purely administrative business. He should have described it as one of the most essentially judicial duties of Quarter Sessions. The methods of the assessment and the levying of rates were laid down in a Statute of 1852, which provided for the appointment of a County Rate Assessment Committee, and it gave them power of levying rates, of having all the officers before them, and examining them on oath. After that was done, the rate was sent to the overseers and submitted to the Vestry, and the overseers were required to forward any objections they might have to the County Rate Assessment Committee, who were compelled to fix a day for hearing such appeals. The County Rate Assessment Committee thereupon appointed a meeting, heard the overseers, or whoever made an objection to the basis of the rate, and, after hearing them, settled the rate, and laid it before the general Court of Quarter Sessions. The Court of Quarter Sessions could alter it in any way they liked; and by the Act of 1852, when confirmed by them, it became the basis for the county rate. So far he did not think there was very much objection to the functions of the Court of Quarter Sessions being transferred to the County Council; but Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1832 gave parishes and persons affected a right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the decision of the County Rate Basis Committee. Section 17, which gave that power of appeal, placed appellants in the usual position of persons appealing. They were to issue notices and state the grounds of appeal, and to go through all the forms of procedure in an ordinary case of appeal. When the cases came on for hearing, the Quarter Sessions were required to hear witnesses on oath, and he did not think the County Council would be a proper tribunal to perform such a duty as that. Therefore, although he thought the making of the basis might be transferred to the County Council, he was of opinion that it would be unwise to put on them the judicial business of hearing appeals.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) did not quite, as far as he could see, embrace all the matters which he had referred to in his speech. The hon. Member desired to have a new system of valuation and a uniform system of assessment. In regard to that, the Government were in entire accord with the hon. Gentleman. Originally, these matters formed a portion of the Local Government Bill; but so many clauses were intricate and controversial that, at the last moment, it was found quite impossible to deal completely and satisfactorily with so large a question as that, in addition to the other important subjects in the Bill. They, therefore, struck those clauses out; but he hoped that they might have an early opportunity of dealing with the whole question of valuations, and he was inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that if they were to take any standard on which the present system was to be amended or reformed, probably the system existing in the Metropolis was the system which they ought to take. Therefore, although there was no proposal of that kind in the Bill at present before the Committee, he could assure the Committee it was not because he was not fully aware of the great importance of the subject. He earnestly hoped that within a reasonable time the Government would be able to deal with the whole question, As far as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the Paper was concerned, it dealt with two questions. One of them was the question of the basis of the standard county rate, and the other was the question of the basis of the standard of all rates leviable in the county. In regard to the question of the preparation of a basis for the County Rate, he had listened attentively to what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) had said, and he agreed with most of the observations which fell from his hon. and learned Friend. As the Committee were aware, they did not propose in the Bill to transfer the duty of the preparation of the standard or basis of the county rate to the County Council, because they desired to deal with that question also in connection with the whole system of valuation; but they had received large numbers of representations from Quarter Sessions in all parts of the country, strongly urging them, along with the duty of levying the rate, to transfer the preparation of the basis of the rate to the County Council. They were, therefore, prepared to accept that portion of the proposals which were made in various Amendments on the Paper, in accordance with the view of his hon. and learned Friend. They were prepared to propose an Amendment by which not only the levying of the county rate, but the preparation of the basis of the county rate, should be transferred to the County Councils. But in reference to the appeals which were twofold—an appeal by the parish against the assessment of the county authorities, and another, an appeal by an individual against the rating in his particular case—these appeals appeared to the Government to have an important judicial element connected with them; and they did not, therefore, propose to make a transfer as far as the question of appeals was concerned, but they proposed to leave the question of appeal, as now, in the hands of the judicial authorities which now exist edin the counties—namely, the Quarter Sessions. He hoped the suggestion he had made would meet with the acceptance of hon. Members who had put down Amendments on the Paper. He proposed to move the insertion of the following Amendment, in page 3, line 12—"And the preparation and revision of the basis of the plan for the county rate." With regard to other rates, he wished to remark that there were a large number of Unions which overlapped counties, and until they had all matters brought within the area of the county they could not give the County Authority power to deal with them. Some Unions were in as many as three counties, and if they gave to the county the power of fixing the basis for all rates, there might be three different bases in the same Union.

said, that although he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, he did not think that it went quite far enough. Speaking of the experience he had gained in connection with the County of Lincoln, he might say that they had been now waiting for 15 years for a new county rate. The whole assessment at the present moment was entirely unsatisfactory—for instance, the docks of Grimsby had sprung up and had made the value very different from what it was. Then, again, the assessment for the different Unions was framed on entirely different principles, so that it was utterly impossible to arrive at any uniform basis by a comparison. Therefore, unless the Government were prepared to go one step further, it appeared to him that they would be in exactly the same position after the Bill was passed as they occupied now. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper giving the County Council—

"The revision of the present county and poor rate assessments, and the preparation of one uniform basis or standard of assessment for all rates leviable within the area of their jurisdiction under this Act, as well as the hearing and deciding of all appeals in relation to the county, district, or local rates."

The object of his Amendment was to secure that there should be one uniform assessment for all purposes, whether for county rate, district rate, or local rate. He himself would go much further, and desired that there should be one collection and one Department. What he desired was that in consultation with the Revenue officers some authority or other—and he could not conceive a better authority than a County Council—should have power to lay down an assessment that should be the sole assessment for all purposes throughout the county. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in a valuation Bill, or some clause that would enable a provision of that nature to be carried out. As far as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman went, he was much obliged to him for the concession he had made, although he thought it did not go far enough.

said, he thought there ought to be power on the part of one parish to appeal against the course pursued in another, instead of allowing matters to go on as they did at present. One parish ought to be able to go in and see that another parish was kept up to its proper valuation.

said, he had heard with satisfaction the concession which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made in this matter; on the wider subject of valuation generally, he thought it was, perhaps, unreasonable to press the Government at this stage. He was glad to hear the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) that as regarded rating the functions of Quarter Sessions should be limited to hearing appeals. He should like to point out that this was, in fact, to adopt the principle of the Amendment he had on the Paper, which exactly carried out the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It provided that the County Council should have "the preparation and revision of the basis or standard for the county rate." He had also an Amendment on Clause 5 reserving appeals to the Quarter Sessions. He understood that to be the principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he was afraid he had not followed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board clearly, and he therefore wished to ask him what was the purport and extent of the clauses it was originally intended to include in the Bill which dealt with the question of the basis for the assessment of the rate? Was it to extend beyond the county rate, and apply to the whole of the rates in the county? He had no desire to raise any objection against the Bill of the Government; but he was bound to express his very great regret at the statement the right hon. Gentleman now felt himself compelled to make. If there was a subject of primary importance, then he maintained that in any scheme for the reform of County Councils the question of assessment and the fixing of all the rates within the county on a uniform system was of the greatest importance. It was not a question which needed argument, and the right hon. Gentleman could not deny its importance, because it was originally part of his measure. Comparing it with other matters that were contained in the Government proposals, what could there be so important for the simplification of the affairs of county government as securing a uniform assessment of property, and why should it not be undertaken now? The Government had intended to undertake it, and it formed the subject of a certain number of clauses in the Bill with that object. They were not very numerous, and they were not clauses which were likely to be discussed in a contentious spirit. The uniformity of assessment was not a Party question. Every Member of that House, to whatever Party he belonged, was bound to desire uniformity of assessment, at any rate throughout the county, if not throughout the country altogether. Since the right hon. Gentleman put the Assessment Clauses in the Bill, and afterwards withdrew them, certain things had happened—for instance, the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the Licensing Clauses, which were contentious, and would have occupied much more time in discussion. He would therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take an opportunity of revising his intention of not including the Assessment Clauses within the Bill, with the view of reinstating those clauses, and, at any rate, of giving his Bill a more respectable appearance when it was passed in the shape of an Act than it now presented. The functions to be handed over to the County Councils were very limited in their nature. They were to manage the main roads, to look after the lunatic asylums, and they were to have something to do, although he did not know exactly how much, with the police. Those were not very large functions—in fact, hardly sufficient to justify the creation of the new Body and the position it was intended to occupy in the county. There was a clause, it was true—namely, the 8th clause, which was of a very remarkable character—to enable by Orders in Council all the administrative business of almost every Department to be handed over without any actual discussion or assent on the part of Parliament to the future County Councils. That clause would have to be discussed in due time. He did not think it would meet entirely with the acceptance of the House; but before anything of that kind was at- tempted, which the right hon. Gentleman himself regarded as an important matter, in the future establishment of County Councils, surely they should endeavour to deal with the question of assessment. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he entirely agreed in the opinion that the securing of uniformity of assessment in the counties was a great object, and he took it from the right hon. Gentleman that he originally thought he could accomplish that object in this measure, and that it would not be necessary to introduce a separate Assessment Bill. The right hon. Gentleman only withdrew the clauses because he thought they would occupy too much time. He had an opportunity now of reinstating them, and it was perfectly certain that they would be discussed in a non-contentious spirit. All desired that the Bill should be reasonably amended, wherever it was necessary, so that when it became law it should be as complete as possible. Moreover, it would reflect greater credit on the right hon. Gentleman, on the Government, and on the House if they could succeed in carrying these clauses.

said, he should like to say a few words on this subject, seeing that it was one in which he took a considerable interest when he first entered Parliament 25 years ago. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) of any desire to defeat the Bill. So far as he was aware, the right hon. Gentleman had supported the Government wherever he could, and had acted fairly and straightforwardly in the discussion of the measure; but, in spite of that, the effect of the acceptance by the Government of the proposal the right hon. Gentleman had so insidiously made would be tantamount to the defeat of the Bill. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remember what had happened already on the subject of assessment. The first Select Committee upon which he ever sat in that House was one appointed in 1866, and it was engaged for that whole Session upon this single question of assessment. If hon. Members knew anything of the discussions which took place in that Committee they would be aware that the subject was discussed with an utter absence of Party spirit; but there were numberless Divisions and endless differences of opinion in regard to points of valuations, as to the amount of deduction to be made in calculating the rateable value of property, and especially as to the powers to be given in relation to the Revenue officers arising from a uniform assessment for Imperial and local purposes. The result of the inquiry of the Committee was that a Bill was introduced by different Governments on more than one occasion in that House—a Bill of 35 or 40 clauses—but no Government ever succeeded in passing it into law, although Members of all shades of opinion were agreed as to the desirability of introducing the principle of uniformity of assessment. Yet with all this information before him, and with the Departmental knowledge he must have obtained when at the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman calmly, at this stage of the Bill, with he did not know how many clauses contained in it, in the middle of June, asked his right hon. Friend to introduce this most difficult and complicated subject into the Bill, and add some 25 or 30 clauses to it. If that was not practically an attempt to defeat the Bill he did not know what was. It was their duty to act in an impartial spirit. The first thing, in his opinion, to be done was to institute reform of county government. When that was done, no doubt, the powers of the tribunal instituted might from time to time be increased; but it would be as absurd to try to place in this Bill all the matters with which county government might have to deal, as to insert in a measure for the reform of Parliament all the social changes which those who promoted Parliamentary reform might hope to secure from a reformed Parliament. Therefore, with as strong a feeling as the right hon. Gentleman could possibly entertain of the desirability of securing uniformity of valuation for Imperial and local taxation through the machinery they were now setting up, and with the firm intention, as expressed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, of taking the subject up at the earliest possible moment, the Government could not consent to encumber and defeat their Bill by inserting such clauses as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

said, he could not altogether agree with the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. For 30 years they had looked for the promised Valuation Bill, and they wanted, if possible, to get some instalment without waiting for another 30 years. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether something might not be done by this measure, and by a very simple addition to the Amendment before the Committee? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that it was impossible to take up the last part of the Amendment, making the standard for the county rate the standard and basis for all the rates of the county, because in a great many counties the boundaries of the county cut the boundaries of the Union. That was a very reasonable objection; but in a great many counties that was not the case, and, as he understood the Bill, it was intended that where they did cut the boundary of counties there was to be a revision of boundaries. He thought the following addition to the Amendment would meet the case—namely, "where or as soon as the boundaries of the county do not cut the boundaries of the union." If the Government would adopt that principle, it would be possible to give a good instalment of what they all wished.

said, he was afraid it would be impossible to deal with the question in the off-hand way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be necessary to give suggestions as to the lines upon which the boundaries were to be settled. Such directions would be absolutely necessary, and clauses that would be essential for the proper carrying out of the view of the hon. Gentleman would be very numerous. Therefore, to come to a satisfactory concession in a few lines, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, was hardly possible.

asked if the Government were inclined to go no further than the first line of the Amendment?

We shall be prepared to accept the first line.

said, that, in those circumstances, he should not press the Amendment.

, in moving an Amendment in the same clause, to insert, at the end of line 15—

"The appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables, and the management of the police in pursuance of this Act,"

said, his object was to hand over the control of the police to the County Councils. He was bound to say that since he put the Amendment on the Paper circumstances had very considerably altered, because the Licensing Clauses of the Bill had been withdrawn; but, at the same time, he still objected to the proposal of the Government to give the control of the police to a joint committee of the magistrates and the members of the County Council. For his own part, he was in favour either of one or the other; and eventually there could be no doubt that the control of the county police would be given to the County Council. Therefore, in order to clear the way, he proposed to give them that control now by his Amendment; but he wished to make it perfectly clear that he should prefer that it should still remain in the hands of the magistrates than it should be handed over to a joint committee. If he did not carry his Amendment now, he should support an Amendment to provide that the control should be retained in the hands of the magistrates instead of being handed over to a joint committee. His objection to a joint committee was that it would be no joint committee at all. It would be a committee either of the Quarter Sessions or of the County Council. How was it to be elected? According to the Bill, it was to be elected one-half by the magistrates and the other half by the County Council, so that one-half, under any circumstances, must be magistrates; and if the County Council, in electing their half, elected one-half magistrates, three-fourths of the entire committee would be magistrates. If, on the other hand, in order to prevent the magistrates from having a predominant voice on the committee, the Council decided not to elect magistrates at all, the effect would be to exclude the most efficient magistrates. That was his chief objection to the present proposal of the Bill; but, for many other reasons, he thought that the County Councils had better deal with the police altogether. There were many duties which the police would have to perform under the County Councils with which the magistrates would have nothing to do. He, therefore, hoped the Government would either agree to place the police under the County Councils, or if they thought it would be better at the present moment that the control of the police should remain in the hands of the magistrates, let them take that course. He sincerely hoped that they would not agree to appoint a joint committee.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, which he intended to move in Clause 5, in regard to the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Quarter Sessions with regard to the police, and perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee to take the discussion of that question on the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. Friend. This was a very serious question, and one which he hoped the Committee would not pass by in a light way. They were only seeking to retain the powers possessed by the magistrates in regard to the police, and they looked upon it as a question of vital consequence to the interests of the country. He looked upon the maintenance of law and order as the one which, above all others, should be in the hands of the magistrates; and if upon them devolved the duty of maintaining law and order, the police should be absolutely under their control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) proposed to place them under the control of the County Council; whereas his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposed, with the exception of the appointment of the Chief Constable, which was to be retained by the Quarter Sessions, to place them under the joint custody of a Committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions, and one appointed by the County Council. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) contended that that was an unfortunate arrangement for many reasons. He wished to put the case very shortly—and he hoped without any prejudice—before the Committee. He thought they ought in this country to maintain, as far as possible, the control of the police in the hands of those persons who happened, from circumstances, to be in a position to undertake the duties of magistrates. Men of all classes, as soon as they were in a condition to support the position, tried by every means in their power to be made magistrates. It was a very laudable desire. [Laughter.] He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was very much amused; but he had no doubt that there were a good many persons who were anxious to become magistrates and perform the duties connected with the office. If they took away the position they now occupied from the magistrates and their sons, and did not give them something to do in the country—[Laughter.] He knew that would provoke a laugh from the other side of the House. But if they drove these men away and prevented them from rendering services that were, in his humble opinion, of great advantage to the counties, they would only drive them into the towns for amusement, instead of allowing them to learn the most useful part of man's education—namely, the administration of law and justice. That was one point he wished specially to call attention to; but there was another—and there he felt he was treading on delicate ground—but he would not mention names or places. Instances had occurred lately—he would not say where, or whereabouts, although a good deal had been stated in that House on the subject—where, if the whole control over the police had been in the hands of the County Councils, there was every reason to believe that in many instances there would have been a grave dereliction of duty. [Dissent.] Hon. Members shook their heads; but in dealing with a question of this kind it was most important to look at all the considerations involved, and, after mature consideration, to come to the conclusion which they believed to be the best, not only for particular localities and individuals, but for the whole country. He believed it would be far wiser, more prudent, and far better in the interests of the country that the police should remain, as they were at present, under the control of the Quarter Sessions, and it was with that object he had ventured to put down the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.

said, the Committee had in this case a means of testing the earnestness and sincerity of the Government in conferring upon the County Councils as much power and dignity as they undoubtedly ought to have. If the magistrates were to lose many of the powers which they had hitherto enjoyed, and which they esteemed so highly, why not give the new County Councils, which were to replace them, all the power and dignity the magistrates had enjoyed, and especially with regard to the control of the police? He was of opinion that the only way in which they could make local government successful was to give all the dignity and power they could to the elected representatives of the people. On that account he was anxious that the control of the police should be given to these Councils. There had been no complaint that the control which the large Corporations possessed over the police had worked badly. On the contrary, all the evidence showed that it had worked well, and he asserted fearlessly that some of the scandals of police administration which had appeared lately in the newspapers—and some of the instances occurred not far from where he was speaking—could not have occurred in localities that were controlled by Watch Committees. For that reason he supported the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). Last Session he had to bring before the House an instance of the brutal treatment on the part of the police of a child in his own Division, and that case would have been inquired into with much less friction in a borough where the Watch Committee had control. Having been a member of a Watch Committee, his own opinion was that it was most desirable that the representa- tives of the people should control the police of the district in which they were elected. He believed that course would bring about a far larger amount of sympathy between the people whom the police controlled and the police themselves. Nowadays there was a strong tendency to convert the police into a quasi-military force. He objected to that, because he wanted to see the police in closer sympathy with the people, and to bring that about it was necessary that they should be placed under the control of elected representatives of the people. He believed that the Amendment would accomplish that object. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) spoke of the preservation of law and order; but there were few instances of the violation of law and order in towns where a popularly elected Watch Committee controlled the police. It was only where the police were under the control of the magistrates or the Government that these questions of law and order cropped up. The best way to preserve law and order was to place the police under the entire control of elected representatives.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) had declared his desire that the police should remain as they were, under the control of the magistrates.

said, he had not said anything of the sort. What he had said was, that rather than leave them under the control of a joint committee he should prefer that they should remain as they were.

said, there were four proposals before the Committee, and it would, perhaps, be better to consider them separately. There was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who wished the police to be under the control of a joint committee. The proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was that they should remain as they were. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) desired them to be under the control of the County Councils; and he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had a further proposal that they should be under the control of the Home Office. He did not propose to consider the advantages or disadvantages of all these proposals at once, but he wished to suggest only the objections he entertained to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that the police should be under the control of the elected Body. Now, an elected Body would not be always and altogether in favour of law and order. In certain cases the elected Body would be entirely in the hands of one class of the community, and that class might be opposed to the law. In the mining counties, for instance, it would be altogether in the hands of the Miners' Organization; and the Miners' Organization was, like every trade organization, not always in favour of law and order. These trade organizations, if they used their power, would be able to command a majority in the County Councils. Now, the police ought to have nothing to do with one class of the community or another. Their only business was to carry out certain laws passed in that House, and they ought not to be influenced in any way by any local or popular feeling. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir Walter Foster) said that all the evidence was in favour of the management of the police in large towns by an elected Watch Committee. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) denied altogether that there was any evidence whatever to justify the assertion. On the contrary, the weight of evidence went against the theory that the Watch Committee of the towns managed their police either as well as they were managed in the counties, or in London, or in Ireland. There were certain Acts of Parliament that were never put in force at all by Town Councils. In some places, like Leicester, the authorities refused to put in force the Vaccination Acts; in other places these elected Bodies would not put in force the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts; and in others they would not allow the police to interfere with licensed houses, because a good many of them belonged to members of the Town Councils; in many of the boroughs they would not allow the police to interfere in any way with weights and measures; and in others the Food and Drugs Act was a dead letter. He was, therefore, justified in saying—and he did so without fear of contradiction—that these elected Bodies did not con- duct their business satisfactorily on the whole. He thought that before this Bill was brought in it would have been prudent to have had a searching investigation into the manner in which the Town Councils had managed their affairs. The Commission which had considered the question in 1839, just before the new Constabulary were established, made this Report—

"It appears to us essential that any paid constabulary should, as far as possible without impeding their general action, be under the judicial supervision of the local magistrates."

That Commission, at all events, was in favour of the police being under the control of persons who were responsible for the maintenance of law and order; and for these reasons he strongly opposed the Amendment.

said, he was sorry that his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had moved his Amendment. In his opinion it was positively a mischievous Amendment, and, taking into consideration the views of his right hon. Friend on other questions, he was sorry that it had been moved. It was impossible for him, and he hoped that it was impossible for any other Unionist, in view of the question of Ireland, to vote for a proposal to hand over the control of police entirely to elected Councillors. [Ironical cheers.] He heard the cheer which hon. Members on that side of the House gave; but they did not shake his position in the least. If his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him, because on other grounds—not upon political grounds, but upon grounds of principle—he considered that the police and its administration should be under the control of and directed by a Judicial Body—he was in favour of placing the police under the control of a committee of magistrates, instead of handing them over to a committee of elected Councillors. He was quite aware that there were many objections to the compromise which had been offered by the Government. He knew from considerable experience—having served for many years on the police committee of his own county—that there were questions of friction and of difficulty that might arise; but, on the other hand, he preferred the compromise proposed by the Government to the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. He thought the Committee ought to view the matter as a very serious one. They need not only look to Ireland; but there were, unfortunately, other parts of the United Kingdom where popular feeling or popular excitement for the moment might interfere most unjustly and most unfairly with the practical administration of the law. [Cries of "Where?"] If hon. Gentlemen asked him "Where?" he should like to recall their attention to the position of affairs in many of the Welsh counties. The point was that it was the law; and the law, until Parliament thought fit to abrogate it, should be maintained. This was no question whether the law was just or unjust; and hon. Members were returned to that House by a democracy in their constituencies, and if the law was unjust they should get Parliament to repeal it, but as long as the law existed it was the duty of the Executive, with complete impartiality, to see that it was carried out. What he objected to was that they should be asked to offer any opportunity or means by which in times of excitement, or in the passion of the moment, the laws might be defeated, and their administration be obstructed by pressure being put on the police, and the police prevented from carrying out their first and primary duty. Before he sat down, he desired to say that if the police were to be prevented from performing that duty, experience had repeatedly shown that the only force on which the country could rely was one which it was most invidious and objectionable to use in such circumstances—namely, the military.

Sir, I am afraid that I shall not be able to keep the debate on so high a level as that to which it has been raised by my noble Friend (Viscount Lymington), who, according to his speech, seems to imagine that the real question at issue is not the control of the police, but that, at all events, the important consequential question is the dismemberment of the Empire. The touching appeals which the noble Lord has addressed to those whom he calls Unionists shows that he is duly impressed with the magnitude of the subject we are now discussing The challenge of the noble Lord is very serious, because he says no Unionist will support the proposal except the renegade who proposed it. But my noble Friend will find there are more renegades than one, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had, in debating this very Bill, stated that he objected to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and that his vote would be in favour of placing the police under the control of the County Councils. Having now done justice to the lofty and statesmanlike elements which my noble Friend has introduced into the debate, I will descend to the more humble mode of conducting the discussion, which I think the Committee will be content to pursue. I regret that in some speeches—not from the Treasury Bench—an element of suspicion and distrust has been introduced. It has been stated, with a good deal of tact and caution, by the hon. Baronet opposite, and with much greater courage by the hon. Member who followed him, that they cannot really trust popularly elected Bodies with the administration of the police in connection with the maintenance of law and order. I venture to express the confident conviction that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board comes to defend the proposal, he will not found his defence upon any such ground as that a representative Body cannot be trusted in this matter, because, if no representative Body can be trusted, how deplorable is the position of the inhabitants of the great towns, who amount to half the population of the country, and who are in the most serious danger in respect of life and property in consequence of the arrangements made for giving them the control of the police. I have no mistrust of anybody in this matter. I am far from saying that the magistrates have misused their powers in this respect; and it is not because they have mismanaged the police, but because I think that the plan proposed by my right hon. Friend is more excellent, more historical, more traditional, more Conservative, and more agreeable to the ancient usage of the country that I shall heartily support his proposal. I must say one word, however, with regard to the magistrates. They are a Judicial Body, and I do not think that as a Judicial Body they are particularly well qualified to exercise control over the police in the matter of the Game Laws. I think in that respect their control of the police might be attended with a certain amount of injurious effect. I am far from making any imputation on the magistrates; but I doubt very much whether the magistrates, personally concerned as they are to so large and special extent with the subject-matter of the Game Laws, are on that account the best chosen authority for the control of the police. However, I do not want to put the case on that ground. But the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he had an apprehension that the Bill was likely to lead to expense. Well, Sir, I am afraid that is not altogether a chimerical apprehension. We are now going to create a separate Body for the management of the police. But every new Body means new expense, and upon the ground of economy, if that were the only ground, I shall certainly prefer a plan which keeps the police under some Body which is about to exist for other purposes, than a plan which creates a now Body for the sake of this arrangement. I think, however, what has been said in this and in former debates is of very great importance. We are now about to create new offices of considerable moment—at least, new offices which we wish to wear considerable dignity, and we can only invest them with dignity by giving them special functions. And, for my part, I own to the desire of giving to the County Councils every duty which it cannot be shown that they are disqualified from performing, or which it cannot be shown that they will perform worse than others. It is most important that in creating these County Councils we should not run the risk of setting up in any shape whatever offices of great prominence which, at the same time, will not be sustained in the mind and view of the people by adequate duties; because the immediate consequence would be that the quality of the men who will seek election will infallibly and very seriously decline. The County Authorities in my own recollection have had no connection whatever with the police. At the time when I came into Parliament there was not the slightest connection between the county and the police. The police were a parochial affair; they were appointed parochially, such as they were. No doubt they are defective, and require to be improved; but they are not defective because they are appointed under a representative authority. Go as far back as you will in history, and you will find that the management and appointment of police, as well as the responsibility for the maintenance of life and property, was admitted to be one of the very first and most essential functions of self-government. In my opinion, self-government without the maintenance and control of the police, and without responsibility for the preservation of life and property, is a mere skeleton or phantasm of self-government. And how came the magistrates to exercise the functions that they now exercise? Simply on this account—that it was thought right, very properly, to put the county police on a new and better footing, and there was no other County Authority whatever to whom, except the magistrates, the management of the police could be entrusted. When I come to a case like that of the Municipality of London, where there are 4,000,000 people to be protected in person and property, it may be wise to adjourn for a reasonable time the transfer of the Police Authority; but, unquestionably, in principle, in my opinion, whether it be in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, or elsewhere, the normal and the permanent arrangement—nay, the only arrangement—agreeable to the ancient usages of the country, is an arrangement which entrusts to the inhabitants, and the representatives of the inhabitants, the appointment and the control of those who are to see to the security of life and property. I earnestly contend that that is not only a tolerable, enduring, and allowable mode of securing that life and property, but that it is the best of all modes.

The importance of the question now before the Committee is, I think, fully recognized by us all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has adverted to ancient usages; but I do not think that we should derive much benefit in respect of this discussion from the system of parish constables. The old police of the country was of the most imperfect and inefficient kind. But I think I could show that the police force, such as it was, and totally inefficient as it was, was not entirely divorced, as this proposal would divorce it, from something of judicial authority. The old parish constable was under the authority of the Court Leet, and, primarily, he was the servant of the law, and not the servant of a merely public body, such as the Vestry, or any elective body. Judicial authority of some sort has always been deemed necessary in this matter, and to divorce them wholly from such authority would not be wise or expedient. There is a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said—namely, that when the ancient and parochial system of police was set aside and superseded, there was no other visible body in the country to whom the management of the police could have been committed, except Quarter Sessions; but I apprehend that if the Acts dating from the beginning of this Reign were carefully looked at, that was not the only consideration which guided Parliament in the matter. Is it true that we can expect greater impartiality and calmness and more judicial temper in the administration of the law from a purely elective body than from the magistrates, or a body in which the magisterial element has its influence? I think not. I agree that a poacher in some parts of England has not much chance if he comes before a preserver of game; but it does not seem to me to touch the sort of control which we think it desirable to keep up. Though I am far from saying a word that would imply distrust of an elective body that had the confidence of the people, yet I do think the influences which operate on an elective body is a matter to be borne in mind. It is impossible that they should not be swayed not merely by a general sympathy with the people, which is a good thing, but by sympathy with temporary gusts of popular feeling, which is not always a good thing, and may lead to uncertainty in respect to the administration of the law. No doubt, when prejudice, passion, and feeling come into collision with some particular law, and when a special law becomes unpopular, a great gust of popular feeling arises which does not represent the true feeling of the country, but only the passion of the moment; and it must be recognized that a body of men dependent for election on the sympathy of the masses may be less able to resist that gust of feeling than the magistrates. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the manner in which the Watch Committees of the boroughs administered the police. I admit that it deserves admiration, but when the hon. Gentleman said there was never any disturbance of law and order in the boroughs, I would point out that—

I said that certain breaches of the law which had occurred lately could not have arisen under the borough system.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind at this moment, but I think the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the incident at Cardiff. I do not think electioneering influences are desirable things to introduce into the administration of the police. Can it be said that because there are magistrates in one county who are not in sympathy with the people, that where they are drawn from the people, they do not represent all classes and ranks of life? Such a position cannot be maintained. What, then, is there to load us to say that they are not to have any share in the enforcement of the part of the law which is committed to them here? It seems to me that this Bill, in offering to the County Councils a joint share in the management and administration of the police, is as large a concession as can reasonably be made on this subject. The whole system of the financial part of the administration is committed to the care of the County Councils, and the various duties they have to perform are certainly sufficient to satisfy the ambition of any man likely to become member of a County Council without the extraordinary course of putting the whole force responsible for law and order into the hands of a purely elective Body.

said, he felt bound to say a word or two with regard to the observation of the Home Secretary that it was a matter of importance that the police should be under the control of the judicial authorities. He took exception to that observation as a matter of principle. If there was any authority which would do its work better by being confined strictly to its own duties, for very obvious reasons it was the judicial authority. And when the noble Lord behind him (Viscount Lymington) shrank from supporting the Amendment, because it would be setting up a had example for Ireland in the future, when he asked whether they would hand over the control of the police in Ireland to elective Councils, he (Sir George Trevelyan) would ask him whether he was ready to accept the alternative, and hand over the control of the police in Ireland to the Justices of the Peace? But they need not go to Ireland. Let them look at Scotland, where law and order were maintained, and in no part of which were the police under judicial authority. They were under the Commissioners of Supply.

said, he was in a position to state the exact contrary. The police force in Scotland was under a judicial authority—namely, the Sheriff of the county.

said, with the greatest deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, he wished to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in error. The Sheriff had, no doubt, a voice in the control of the police, but no one knew better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Sheriff had two distinct functions, one judicial and the other representative of the Crown. It was not in his judicial capacity that he was connected with the police.

said, he thought the Lord Advocate by his interruption had not attained the end which in a moment of hurry he had in view—namely, for throwing doubt on his argument. The Chief Constable in a Scotch county was selected by a Committee of the Commissioners of supply, who were not judicial persons. He would, however, pass from the counties to the boroughs of Scotland, where law and order was preserved, sometimes in the most trying circumstances and in the most admirable manner, by the police who were under an elective authority, not only such as they had in English boroughs, but such as they were now desirous of establishing in the counties. What great city was there in which they could imagine it more difficult to keep order than in Glasgow? And yet its police were most admirably managed by a purely elective Council. In addition to its great floating population, there was in Glasgow a large imported population from Ireland, belonging to the two conflicting parties in that country, but the police discharged their duties in a manner which was unsurpassed in any other part of the country, and they were under an elected authority which contained no Aldermen or selected Councillors. In his opinion, the more purely elective they made their authority the more they would bring on the side of the authority those moral forces which were the basis of law and order. He believed there was much less danger of favouritism and jobbery in an elective than in a nominated Body. Of all important concessions that could be made in the shape of self-government, almost the most important was the disposal of offices of responsibility and emolument, and he believed that this had, perhaps, as much to do with the question to which the noble Lord behind him had referred as any other part of the question. They were going to give Home Rule to counties, and were they to keep from them about the best and most important piece of patronage in the counties? In Northumberland, on the election of Chief Constable, after a committee of magistrates had carefully selected three candidates, a majority of the magistrates, from personal motives and under personal pressure, appointed a candidate who proved to be a most unsuitable person, and whose appointment was most unfortunate for the county. He did not believe that would have been done if the great influence now exercised in the county by his hon. Friend the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew Ridley) had at the time been exercised as extensively as it was at that moment. But the thing was done, and he believed it always might be done in any nominated Body, and it was for the purpose of preventing such abuses, as well as for the purpose of separating administrative from judicial functions, that he should vote for the Amendment.

said, he had no intention of intervening in the discussion, but thought it right to make a short statement with reference to the management of the police in Scot- land. It was perfectly true that it was not in his judicial but in his administrative capacity that the Sheriff of a county in Scotland took charge of the police in its administrative work. He took that to be true of every magistrate, but it did not alter the fact that, as in England, a judicial officer was entrusted with the control of the police; and not only had the Sheriff control of the police in a county, but, if at any time disturbance arose in a borough, and he came on the spot and took the steps necessary to put an end to it by means of the borough police, the magistrates of the borough could not interfere with his orders and directions. He was the executive officer of the State, and the responsible administrative official to take charge of the police in that capacity in all cases. His right hon. Friend referred to the fact that in the boroughs the police were administered by elective Bodies, but he ventured to point out that in that respect the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. The police were not under the orders of the borough council, but under the orders of the magistrates, who were gentlemen elected and chosen by the Town Council as Aldermen were in England, but had to take the position of judicial officers as well.

said, it was no accidental or verbal distinction which existed between the functions of the Sheriff as Judge and as the representative of the Crown in his county, and it was in the latter capacity only that he had certain authority over the police. The control of the police rested with a body of men who were in no sense a judicial body—namely, the Commissioners of Supply, who were qualified in virtue of certain property, and it was to a police committee, nominated by them, that the control of the police was entrusted, an arrangement which corresponded in all respects to the police in an English county. It was entirely a mistake to say that the control of the police was made dependent on judicial functionaries either in counties or boroughs.

said, he did not wish to refer either to Scotland or Ireland in the few observations he had to make on this subject. All he desired was to submit one or two practical considerations in connection with the Bill, which related solely to England and Wales. In that light it appeared to him that there was a good deal of force in the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) to the dual control of the police, and that being so there remained the choice between the County Councils on the one hand and the magistrates on the other. If they were to transfer the police to the County Councils, it would be acknowledged that that would be a very considerable change, and if it was to be made, the least hon. Members could do was to offer some serious reasons for making it. What reasons had been given in the whole of the discussion? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had, by way of illustration, cited a certain case which he said occurred in Northumberland. He (Mr. Chaplin) was unable to speak on that subject from personal knowledge; but he believed it was a solitary instance, probably the only one which could be quoted. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!) Then he hoped they would have other illustrations, because the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was less jobbery in elective Bodies in appointing to important offices than there was in nominated Bodies, and he was bound to say that, so far as he and the great majority of the Committee were concerned, that was totally opposed to their experience. Was it pretended that the administration of the police, as conducted by the magistrates in the past, was to be generally condemned? They had heard something from the hon. Member for Chester about the scandalous administration in the past, but he believed the hon. Gentleman stood alone in the assertion he made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), last night, expressly repudiated the making of any charge against the magistrates, so far as their duties were performed, although he complained of the manner in which they were appointed; and that repudiation was re-affirmed that day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks in connection with the Game Laws; but he expressly guarded himself against making any imputation against the magistrates. That being so, he (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to come to the conclusion, which was a perfectly fair one, that up to the present time no good reason had been advanced for making any change in the system which by general, if not by universal, admission was acknowledged to have worked well up to the present time. Who was in future to be responsible for the administration of the law—the County Council or the magistrates? There was no question that for some time it must be the magistrates in whose hands the responsibility was to rest. Why, then, should they be deprived of the means of discharging the responsibility? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made a somewhat sweeping assertion when he said that the County Council ought not to be entrusted with every duty unless it was shown they were qualified to undertake them. But how were they to prove a negative? How were they to prove they were disqualified for duties until they had shown themselves unfit to perform them? He would rather put it in the other way—reversing the contention of the right hon. Gentleman—and say, "Give to the County Councils, and impose upon them every duty that you like, as soon as it is shown that they are qualified to perform them." He was opposed to binding these new Councils with too many and too onerous duties until, at all events, they had had an opportunity of seeing how these bodies performed their duties. He hoped that when his right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) went to a Division, and he supposed that his right hon. Friend would go to a Division, they—on the Ministerial side of the House—accompanied by a great number of good Friends on the other side of the House, would go solid against the Amendment. Then, when the Amendment was rejected, it would remain to consider at a future time whether the control of the police was to be entrusted to the authority contemplated by the Government in the Bill, or whether it should be left, as in his opinion it ought to be, in the hands of the magistrates as at present.

said, there were some on the Opposition side of the House who regarded this matter as inferior in importance to none in the Bill. He, for one, must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was not in his place to take what he (Mr. James Stuart) regarded as the popular side, at any rate, upon this important matter. He listened with astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), and to that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). He listened with astonishment to those speeches, because in them what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue in favour of, was the status quo in respect to the police. He was astonished that those two Gentlemen were prepared to support the proposal of the Government contained in this clause. If it was desirable to remove the police from the danger of popular control, which was really the essence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, surely, then, the argument was that the police should remain as they were, and dead against the proposal of this Bill, which was to put the police under a joint committee of the two Bodies specified in the Bill. It ought to be borne in mind why the police were placed under the Quarter Sessions. If they looked through the country it would be seen that the police had, by the wisdom of Parliament, always been placed under the control of the Body most nearly representative of those among whom the police acted. In the boroughs they were put in the hands of the representative Body, and the boroughs were the only places where they had representative Bodies; in the counties, the nearest approach to a representative Body was the Quarter Sessions. In the case of London, they found that the very reason for not putting the police under the control of any Body short of Parliament was given by Sir Robert Peel at the time of the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act, and the reason given was this, that there was no representative Body in the Metropolis in whose hands the control of the Police Force could be placed. Now, why he and his hon. Friends argued that the police should be put in the hands of the Councils, was that Parliament was creating a representative Body in the counties where no representative Body had hitherto existed. If the Government followed, as nearly as they could, the conditions which had been laid down previously, they would place the police in the hands of the new Bodies. They need not go very far from their own doors to see the evils which arose when the police were entirely managed by some Body away from and outside the people. He asserted, without referring in detail to a matter which he would have to refer to again,—he meant the question of the London police—there was no place in England where the control of the police was more removed from the people than London, and there was no place in England where there was more dissatisfaction generally in connection with the police. He did not put that at the door of the police, but at the door of the method of their control. If they went over the water to Ireland, where they found nearly continual the conflict between the people and the police, the police were controlled from a great distance. It had been noticed by people coming to this country how ready the people were to assist the action of the law. People here assisted the action of the law because they knew the control over the execution of the law emanated, to a very great extent, from among themselves, much more, at any rate, than it did in other countries. Even as the police were now constituted, in the counties they were more under the control of the people than they were on the other side of the water. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke as if a popularly elected Body would be subject to the whims of every passing impulse, and as if the Justices of the Peace or the Commissioners of the Police in London were Bodies of persons who, like the gods, were entirely free from the influence of human affairs. They needed to go no further than London to see that the controlling Bodies were certainly not altogether free from the pressure of certain prejudices, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether there were not as many instances of unelected Bodies, controlling the police in this country, being affected by passing events as there were of elected Bodies? Although a previous speaker had referred to some temporary difficulty at Cardiff, that was altogether exceptional. The borough police of this country had, as a whole, been well conducted and managed, and, as a whole, had been free from those influences which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary sought to attribute to the police in the counties if they were made subject to popular control. If the right hon. Gentleman feared popular control in that way, why did he introduce popular control in the Bill to the extent it was introduced? He (Mr. James Stuart) had abstained intentionally from entering into the question which affected Londoners more than any other body of persons—namely, the relation of the police in London to the people. He had done so because the question would come up again for discussion. He dealt with the matter on general grounds, and he repeated that there was no question which to him was of more importance, there was none which required more discussion, there was none on which he and his hon. Friends would criticize more closely the votes of those Liberals who sat upon the Opposition Benches, but who generally voted with the Government.

said, he thought it was very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) had coupled together two subjects, each of which seemed worthy of discussion. These subjects were the control of the police and the appointment of the Chief Constables. His sympathies were entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in the one; in the other they were entirely opposed to him. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in his speech just now, pointed out that no one had shown any reason to suppose that the County Councils would be capable of undertaking the duties proposed to be entrusted to them. But he would point out to his right hon. Friend that when they were constituting a new and great Body like the County Council there ought to be some strong reasons shown for withholding from them a duty so important as the duty of controlling the police. He held that the more power that was given to these assemblies, the greater would be the position they would occupy in the county. Nor did he believe there was any reason whatever to suppose that popularly elected Bodies had any sympathy at all with disorder. There were exceptional cases, no doubt, but he thought it could be shown that elected bodies generally did exercise with rigour the executive powers entrusted to them in the direction of suppressing disorder. He must say there was one difficulty which presented itself to his mind—it was one of those anomalies, however, which he supposed were frequently found in our system. The magistrates of a county were responsible for the peace of the county, and it certainly did seem an anomalous condition of things to deprive them of all power of keeping the peace. As a matter of fact, the same circumstances existed at present in the boroughs, and although it was an anomaly, it was one of those which had been found to work well. Therefore he supposed it might be equally applied to the counties. That was the only consideration which seemed to be against placing the control of the police in the hands of the County Councils, but he should not oppose the proposal on that account. He desired, however, to say a word in reference to the appointment of the Chief Constables. That appeared to be a matter of much greater importance. He did not believe the appointment of any high official could be satisfactorily made by any large body whatever, by the Quarter Sessions or the County Council. He had been informed by various people who were familiar with the working of Quarter Sessions that when the appointment of a Chief Constable came up it did happen that gentlemen who did not usually attend the Sessions turned up in considerable numbers. He did not think there was any reason to suppose that County Councils would be any freer than Quarter Sessions from this peculiar fallibility of human nature. Personally, he thought elected Bodies were much more likely to be swayed in that direction than Quarter Sessions; his belief was that Chief Constables ought to be appointed by some individual, be he the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary, with the power of removal by address from the County Council; and he had a strong suspicion they would get better men in that way, and that there would be, by address from the County Council, a check upon the appointment of men who were not fit for the office. He was, under these circumstances, in some doubt as to the way he ought to vote. He had to weigh in his mind which was the more important feature of the case—the appointment of the Chief Constable or the control of the police. He was bound to say that, on the whole, the control of the police being placed under the County Councils was of more urgent importance than the appointment of the Chief Constable, and it would, therefore, be his unhappy fortune on this occasion to dissociate himself from very many of his hon. Friends.

said, he thought there was a little confusion in the debate arising from the mixing up of the administrative and the judicial control of the police. The Committee would see the essential difference if they would allow him to recall to their minds what was the position of the police both administratively and judicially in the boroughs of the Kingdom. He knew nothing about the law of Scotland, but he knew how the police were administered in the boroughs with large populations. The administrative control of the police in those boroughs was in the hands of a Watch Committee appointed by the Town Council of the borough, and if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was correct, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) amounted to a divorce of the police from all judicial control, the greatest sinner in that respect would be the borough which the Home Secretary had the honour to represent, in which he ventured to say the police were as well and as efficiently managed as they were in any county in England. But in boroughs there was also judicial control of the police, the judicial control to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alluded when he went through all the various processes of issuing summonses controlling the action of the police with reference to the preservation of the peace, and that maintenance of law and order to which so many hon. Members had alluded. That was in the hands of the magistrates, and was not in the hands of Town Councils. If they went into the counties, they found the magistrates exercised a two-fold jurisdiction. As the magistrates are responsible for he maintenance of law and order, they controlled the police in the exercise of those functions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had alluded; but the administrative control of the county police was in the hands of the Police Committee of the county, which was appointed by the Quarter Sessions, and really he did not suppose for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would contend that that was a judicial function at all. That was a purely administrative function which the magistrates had discharged with great efficiency and economy. The point, therefore, was not whether they were going to transfer what was judicial, but whether, when they were setting up in the county a popularly elected Body, who were to have control of the expenditure of the finances, they should not place that elected Body in precisely the same position in regard to the administrative control of the police as Town Councils were placed in the boroughs. Of course, they might argue from theory or from experience; they might argue that a nominated Body as magistrates were a better Body for exercising these functions than an elected Body; but the whole theory of the Bill was that it was desirable to transfer the administrative functions of nominated Bodies to the hands of elected Bodies; and the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee against elected Bodies applied not only to this clause, but to every other clause of the Bill. If they wanted to judge from experience they must take the experience of the large boroughs. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary raise some doubt about the administration of the police in large boroughs. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, had all larger populations than most of the counties; they had a larger number of police, and they had a more difficult population to deal with. They contained large numbers of the criminal classes, and they were subjected to what had been called popular gusts of feeling. Yet no one had ever complained that the administration of the police there had been ineffective or unsatisfactory, or that in any way the administration of law and order had been prejudiced by being placed in the hands of the elected representatives of those boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alluded to the case of Torquay; he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) intended to quote that as an illustration of his point. There the police were in no way interfered with by the elected Body. The elected Body was the prosecuting Body in that case, and the police were perfectly independent. Speaking from his own experience in a Watch Committee, the police, in the discharge of their functions, in the preservation of Laws, were not interfered with by the Town Council. For all purposes of the maintenance of law and order the police were under the control of the magistrates. If any question arose the magistrates communicated with the Home Secretary, and if it was necessary action was taken through the magistrates. All that the supporters of this Amendment argued was that the administration and financial control of the police and the patronage of the police should follow the administration and financial control of all the other business of the county. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Holderness Division of York (Commander Bethell) referred to the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought he could show to the Committee, if they could go through the various elections which had taken place, that the election of a Chief Constable in a large borough was not conducted on those principles of popular election which prevailed in counties. The appointment of a Chief Constable—say, at Birmingham, or any other large town—vested in the hands of the Watch Committee, which was a small Body. There had just been a Chief Constable elected in Staffordshire, and the election had aroused as much interest among the magistracy as a Parliamentary Election Votes had been sought East and West, and North and South. He had no doubt the Quarter Sessions elected the very best man, but to say that there had been anything of a judicial character in the election proceedings was to caricature judicial functions. The principle which underlay the whole of this question was, were they prepared to maintain that constituents who were competent to elect men to sit in the House of Commons to control all the naval and military expenditure, and to control the policy of the Empire, were incapable of electing a Body of men in order to control financially the police force in the counties in which they lived. If popular election was worthy of the name, if popular government could be trusted to any extent, it surely could be trusted to the extent which the very small Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) proposed. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) trusted the Government would accept the Amendment, and that they would not maim the Representative Councils of the Counties by depriving them of functions which similarly elected Bodies in great towns had efficiently discharged for upwards of half a century.

said, that what they all desired was that now they were constituting new county authorities they should make adequate provision for the maintenance of that force which had the preservation of law and order in its hands in a state of effieiency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had drawn an analogy from the case of towns, and had endeavoured to prove from that analogy that they would be perfectly safe in dealing with this question of the police in the counties in precisely the same manner as had been for a long time past done in towns. But he (Mr. Ritchie) had ventured once before in discussing this question to point out that, in the opinion of the Government, there was a very marked and wide difference between a borough and a county for purposes of this kind. He ventured again to press upon the Committee that there was that very real distinction, a distinction which made it essential that they should consider this question of counties altogether apart from the question of how the matter was arranged in the large towns for which the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt competent to speak. What was the position in large boroughs, at Birmingham, and Liverpool, and Wolverhampton? It was perfectly true that the administration of the police was in the hands of elected Bodies, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would acknowledge that the representation of individual interests in the borough he represented was very much more complete than it was possible for them to hope for in the case of the smaller areas over which the County Councils would have to exercise control. The Town Councils of the large boroughs consisted of a very large number of representatives; they were elected in considerable number from all parts of the borough, and they represented all sec- tions of the community within the borough. A borough itself was a comparatively small area; although the population was large it was confined within a very limited space, and the condition of affairs in every part of the borough was within the knowledge of all the members of the council having to administer the police who had the care of law and order. But what was the condition of things in counties? They had a very large number of districts in the counties, some of them rural, some of them municipal boroughs, and if they were to follow out the analogy of the boroughs, the fit and proper system would be not to give the control of the police to the County Councils at all or to any Joint Committee, but to have a separate police force for all the various districts over which the District Councils which were to be created should have separate administrative control. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose that, and no Member of the Committee had proposed it. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was that the County Council—which was elected from a very large area, an area which contained many smaller areas often very widely scattered, and very often in no sense connected by interest or association—that they should give to the County Council which represented all the various places in the county the control of the police for the whole area of the county including both rural and urban districts. Now, in some counties the area was so large and the population was so great that the number of representatives which were to be retained in order to make a workable Council compelled them to limit very much indeed the number of representatives to be returned from the various areas, and many of these areas, some of them boroughs, some large urban districts, others rural districts, would only return one or two members. Now, under these circumstances, he did not think that it could be in any sense considered that the representatives of these districts or the ratepayers of these districts could have that complete control over the police force which the ratepayers of a borough had over their police force. That being so, and the county itself consisting of a very large area of very scattered population, and a very large number of districts, hardly any one of which had connection with the other, they considered that the Representative Council of that county was not in the same sense as qualified to efficiently represent all the various communities, as able to give that same kind of control over the police force as a Town Council of a borough was. These things considered, let him observe what, in the opinion of the Government, was the best means for providing for the adequate administration of the police force. They found that hitherto it had been entirely in the hands of the magistrates. They recognized at once that, having set up a great Representative Institution, they could not propose in the House of Commons that the representatives of the people duly elected were to have no control over the administration of the police force, but they considered that, having set up an entirely new Body under the circumstances he had named, it would not be wise to put the entire control of this force which was responsible for law and order throughout the great county area under the new Body. They, therefore, thought it was a perfectly justifiable proposal that along with this new Body they should associate the old body which had for so many years adequately performed its duties respecting the administration of police. He did not anticipate that there was at all likely to be any conflict whatever in connection with this matter. He knew that some of his hon. Friends thought that possibly there might be some conflict between the two component parts of the joint committee, but the Government did not think there would be anything of the kind. There were many joint committees at the present time, some of which had been mentioned before, where nothing like the conflict which had been spoken of arose, or was likely to arise. The sole and only desire of the Government had been, in handing over to the new Authority these large powers, to obtain efficiency. There had been no question whatever of suspicion on their part of the newly-elected Bodies. It would, indeed, be a sorry compliment to these great Bodies, which the Government, as their authors, would be naturally the last to pay, if they were to say that they had a suspicion as to the way in which they would exercise their authority. What they were seeking to obtain was a Body so composed as would in their opinion be the best for maintaining in efficiency the police force; and in associating the old and new Bodies for that object, they thought they had arrived at a solution of the difficulty which met exactly the requirements of the case, and which did not in any shape or form reflect the smallest discredit or suspicion upon the new Authorities.

said, he confessed he was unable to follow the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to show the difference between the new Councils as the representatives of the interests of the counties and the Watch Committees and Town Councils as the representatives of the interests of the boroughs. As he was unable to follow the course of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, he did not intend to attempt any refutation of them. He hoped that the Government would carry out loyally their expressed intention of endeavouring to make the County Council as representative a Body as circumstances would allow, and, in his opinion, as far as it was representative it warranted the analogy which had been drawn between its functions and these of existing Town Councils. On the general question he did not know whether one ought not to sympathize with the Government in this matter, because they seemed to him to be anything but at one with their supporters. While the Government professed to be actuated by no distrust of the Bodies they proposed to set up, the speeches of their supporters behind them had breathed an entirely contrary spirit. The Committee were told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) that an elected Body was not in favour of law and order. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) did not know in what quarter the hon. Gentleman had pursued his historical researches, but they must have been in quarters entirely misleading. If there was one charge more than another as to this matter which had been urged against republics and elected Bodies generally, it was that they had been too arbitrary in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them, and had put down with too strong a hand any attempted invasion of the rights and authority of which they believed themselves to be possessed. He saw in the present proposal of the Government a gloomy foreboding as to the way the Body which the Bill called into existence would exercise their functions. While the Government were prepared to confide lunatics, the most helpless part of the community, to the care and consideration of the County Councils, they considered that if they entrusted to them the administration of the police force they would be putting power into the hands of persons who knew not how to use it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had rebuked certain hon. Gentlemen who sat behind him in no uncertain tone. He had argued that it was impossible to prove a negative. He had argued that because there was no proof as yet to show that the new County Councils were fitted for the duties conferred upon them by the Bill, the control of the police should not be given to them. That was another example of the forebodings which they had heard uttered in dismal tones by some of those who had spoken from behind the Front Government Bench. If they pursued the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to its logical conclusion they would give these County Councils no duties at all. They were not, according to the right hon. Gentleman, to be entrusted with duties until they had shown their fitness to discharge them; but that could not be shown until they had had duties to discharge. This language of the gloomy prophets contrasted very strongly and markedly with the language of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who looked with a cheerful countenance to a not far distant period, when all, or nearly all, the functions of county government, would be vested in these new Bodies. The noble Viscount the Member for the South Molten Division of Devon (Viscount Lymington) had referred to Ireland and Wales. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) did not think that the tithe riots in Wales was a very happy instance for the noble Viscount to select, because the tithe disturbances occurred at a place where the police were under the control of the county magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mat- thews) had alluded to disturbances which had taken place in Cardiff. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) was unable to see how the case of the disturbances at Cardiff helped the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At Cardiff an inquiry was held into the conduct of the police on a certain occasion. It was not for him to criticize the capacity of the tribunal which investigated the conduct of the police, nor to say anything in regard to its findings; but how an inquiry into the conduct of the police in a borough could assist the argument that the control of the police was not to be given to the County Councils, he was at a loss to understand, especially in view of those instances which were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) showing how admirably the control worked in the larger towns and boroughs throughout the Kingdom. It was far from his intention to do anything to delay the Committee in arriving at a conclusion by a vote upon the question; but there were one or two other matters he wished to refer to. It was a curious fact, with regard to the control of the police by the authorities in boroughs and the authorities in counties, that in the disturbances which took place in Cardiff (and he believed it was also the case at Belfast) it was to the police who were imported from outside that the bulk of the disorders were mainly, if not altogether, attributed, and not to those who were under the control of the authorities within the borough. That was another instance which went to support the argument adduced on the Opposition side of the House; but among the gloomy pictures drawn on the other side, there was one bright spot shown by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The hon. and gallant Baronet gave as a reason for the continuance of the present system that everybody in his district was desirous of being a magistrate; this might be true and might be an example of well or ill regulated ambition, but it proved nothing that could be of service in this discussion. The complaint they had to make in Wales was that magistrates were almost invariably selected from one class of people, and persons who were fairly entitled to a seat upon the Bench were denied the position by those who had the power of appointment. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had referred to the enforcement of the Game Laws by magistrates, and had appeared to confess that it was not all that could be desired. But his (Mr. Bowen Rowland's) and his hon. Friend's complaint was not by any means restricted to the hearing of cases under the same Laws, but rather as to the employment of police as additional gamekeepers. There was a Statute which prevented gamekeepers being constables, but the action of the magistrates really turned constables into gamekeepers. He was not there to make any special charge against the magistrates, although he was obliged to confess that their training and prejudices disposed them to run in one groove. On the grounds he had enumerated, he hoped the Committee would grant full control of the police to the County Council.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had had, he thought, a difficult task, and he had not been perfectly successful in fulfilling it in endeavouring to justify the scheme of the Bill in regard to the control of the police, because the measure of the right hon. Gentleman was founded on the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and everyone knew that in the Municipal Corporations the police were under the Town Council, and not under any mixed Committee or under any foreign Body. How did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to justify and account for the proposal in his measure? As far as he (Mr. Stansfeld) could understand it, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to draw a distinction between the boroughs and the counties with respect to the management of the police. He had said, in the first place, that if they were to go by analogy they ought to confer on District Councils the superintendence and management of the police; and he added that the County Councils were not as distinctly and as definitely representative Bodies as the District Councils were, or might be, in regard to the question of police. But what was his proposal? To give the superintendence of the police and the patronage of the police to a Body which was less representative than the County Council itself. There was no justification, it seemed to him (Mr. Stansfeld), for that argument. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the County Council was in some respects less fitted than the Council of a borough to undertake these functions. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed, what experience had the Councils which were created for the first time under that Act? Besides, the County Councils of the future would be largely, and perhaps mainly, composed of the very men, or, at any rate, the class of men, from whom magistrates were chosen, and who had peculiar experience in the management of police. It was no use casting doubts on the Councils which they proposed to create for popular government in the counties, unless they could justify those doubts, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the conditions of the case were such that the future County Councils would largely consist of county magistrates, and almost exclusively consist of owners of property and county gentlemen, from which classes of the community magistrates were chosen. Therefore, he maintained that on the ground of experience there was more reason for conferring on County Councils the administration of the police than there was reason when the Municipal Corporations Act was passed for conferring that power on the Councils which were thereby created. He wanted to give the Government to understand that they had come at length in this Bill upon what was a vital question, a question upon which they on the Opposition Benches felt deeply, and upon which their friends and constituents, and those who were politically in accord with them felt deeply; and he said this without fear or hesitation, that upon the conclusion to which the Committee came that day would depend largely the aspect in which the measure would be regarded by the people of the country, and that it would be impossible to avoid dissensions and political discussions, particularly with reference to that part of the measure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) seemed to think that they (the Opposition) would find a difficulty in stating positively their reasons for objecting to the Government measures or to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and of approving of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), which they were discussing at this moment. He (Mr. Stansfeld) felt no difficulty in stating the views and principles by which he believed they on that (the Opposition) side of the House were guided on this subject. First of all, they objected to the very thing which many people seemed to desire—they objected to mixing judicial with executive functions. They objected to too close and intimate an alliance between the Judges or magistrates and the police, and they adopted entirely the lucid and unanswerable explanation and arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had put forward so clearly, to the effect that what they desired was not to interfere with the judicial functions of the magistracy, or to take away from them any power which judicially they were entitled to exercise over the police in the county, but simply to place in the hands of a popularly elected Body, which was to pay for the police, the right of nominating and managing the police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had placed in his (Mr. Stansfeld's) hands the words of the Municipal Corporations Act which referred to this subject, and the thing was perfectly plain. The words were contained in the 91st section of the Act, and it was plain from that section that the powers conferred on the Watch Committees of Town Councils were purely administrative, and that the police remained absolutely at the disposal of the Justices, who were entitled to call upon them to act. In the 2nd sub-section of that clause, he found that every constable should be liable to obey all such lawful commands as he might receive from any of the Justices having jurisdiction in the borough or in any county in which that constable was called on to act. Therefore, there was no difference at all between hon. Members on that and hon. Members on the other side on the question of the magistracy retaining all that power which might fairly be called judicial as distinct from the administrative power, and all that he claimed was that the measure, the principal object of which was to take away from the magistrates of counties that which was not judicial, but purely administrative, should follow that principle when they came to deal with the subject of the administration of the police. They on that (the Opposition) side of the House had another reason. They objected to the refusal to give the County Councils of the future that control over the police which the Borough Councils had, and which the Councils of Boroughs which were to be Counties were to have in the future. He thought it was a sorry compliment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to pay to the County Councils, which he was instrumental in creating, to refuse them administrative powers which were vested in Town Councils by the Municipal Corporations Act. He (Mr. Stansfeld) ventured to think, or to suspect, that the right hon. Gentleman's feeling was not very strong against the arguments and the resolution which he (Mr. Stansfeld) was now advocating, and that it had been a matter of Party tactics and of concession to what might be called the Quarter Sessions element which had led the right hon. Gentleman to propose this compromise, which many even on the opposite side of the House did not think would work without difficulty and friction. But he (Mr. Stansfeld) should like the Committee to take a somewhat larger view of the matter, and would put it in this way. He contended that they could not do a more useful thing for law and order than to call upon the local representatives, freely chosen by the people, to administer the police, subject always to the right of the magistracy to call upon them when it might be necessary to do so. He had yet to learn the very A B C of Constitutional Government, if it was not a fact that if they wanted to rule the people with law and order, the people must be put on the side of law and order. Did not everyone know that looking back at the history of the Municipal Corporations of the country, how eminently successful the adoption in practice of that principle had been? There might have been occasions when there had been some difficulties to encounter, and when there had been some partial failure, but, looking at the question broadly and fairly, could anyone say to himself that any other measure or proposal or method could have conduced so much to the successful observance of law and order in the big boroughs of this country as the principles and arrangements of the Municipal Corporations Act, which placed the police under the administrative control of the Town Councils? Why, it was common sense and common knowledge that about the best thing they could do with men was to sot them to a good work—was to define their duty and set them to do it. Under such circumstances most men would do their duty. If an elective Body of men were given the administration of the Bill whether they were a Borough Council or a County Council, however popularly they were chosen, they placed them at once upon the side of the law, and infused into their minds a high sense of responsibility. There had been many occasions in the history of the Municipal Corporations of this country when popular feeling was strongly against the exercise of police power, but the popularly elected representatives of the people in the Councils had not hesitated in the fulfilment of their duties, and had called upon the police to perform theirs. He said, therefore, that if they would do the best thing for law and order, they would place the police entirely under the control—subject to the right by law of the magistrates to call upon them to act in certain cases—entirely under the superintendence and control of the County Councils. What he had noted, he must say with some surprise, was that the objection to the present proposal had sprung from the other side of the House—from the supporters of the Government who had brought in this measure. He would put it to the Gentlemen who opposed this proposal to invest the County Councils of the future with the management of the police—he would put it to them on what ground did they support the proposal to create County Councils, if they could not trust them? These County Councils would undoubtedly consist to a large extent of gentlemen who were magistrates at the present time. They would further consist of persons coming mainly from the class from whom the magistrates were chosen. Was it for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cast discredit and a slur upon their own class, and upon their fitness for the fulfilment of their duties, and to take refuge in the argument of the President of the Local Government Board, when he said that those duties which the Borough Councils and their Watch Committees had conducted and fulfilled with admirable success for half a century, those who would compose the County Councils were not fitted to perform. These were the views and the principles which they (the Opposition) entertained. They held the strongest opinion upon the subject, and they would vote upon it that day with the strongest and deepest conviction, and they would never rest satisfied, even if it were carried against them now, until they had reform, and had invested the County Councils with the same rights in regard to the police as the Borough Councils possessed.

said, he had listened with admiration to the very eloquent and theoretical speech with which they had just been favoured by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); but, with the permission of the Committee, he should like to recall it to a few dull, common-place facts. Now, let them just look for a moment at what was the proposal of the Government in this Bill. First, in regard to the position of the Chief Constable, it was proposed by the Bill that he should be retained, and that the power of appointing him should still rest with the County Magistrates; but before he dealt purely with the Amendment which they were now considering, he would draw the attention of the Committee for one moment to what the powers were which the magistrates had over the Chief Constable. They had power to appoint him, but they had not, to use the words of the Amendment, the power of controlling the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable, he apprehended, acted independently of the magistracy, nor did he think—and he spoke under correction if he was wrong—that they had the power of dismissing him, except indirectly, because, of course, they controlled the purse-strings. But the Amendment they had now under consideration went a great deal further, and proposed to give to the County Council much more power over the Chief Constable than the magistrates now had, because they not only proposed to give to the County Council his appointment, but the power of controlling him and dismissing him as well. He ventured, therefore, to think that the matter was one to which the Committee should devote very careful consideration before they decided in which way they ought to vote. Something had been said in regard to the magistrates, and in particular by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). Well, he could not help thinking that, as a rule, the magistrates had performed their duty, so far, in a most exemplary manner. He could not help thinking himself that if attacks were made upon them from time to time, such as were recently made upon them by some Members on the other side of the House, and if these attacks were unjustifiable, he did not think the present wish to belong to the magistracy would long continue; but, on the other hand, he felt certain that if Lords Lieutenants of counties were to take care in appointing magistrates that they only chose the best men, men of culture and intelligence and position, and who had characters to lose, the magistracy would continue to enjoy the very high respect it had hitherto secured on the part of the community. He should further like to say this: he could hardly help thinking that it was a mistake to suppose that when gentlemen took upon themselves the office of magistrates, they did not put on one side, as the Judges did, all considerations of politics and all considerations of religion, and he thought that when they came to the decision of cases brought before them, they endeavoured to decide them as the Judges did, however they may have felt politically on certain subjects beforehand. Therefore, he was one of those who maintained that magistrates ought never to be selected on account of their religion or politics, but entirely on account of their intelligence and capacity. Now, let him say one word with regard to the appointment of the constables. He confessed, himself, he should have preferred to see both the appointment of the Chief Constable and of the other constables still kept in the hands of the magistrates, or given over to some Government Department—say, the Local Government Board; but it seemed to him the Bill proposed that there should be a joint committee, so far as the management was concerned. As a matter of course, he should vote for it; but he should draw attention to what he thought was an argument from which they could pretty well form an opinion as to how they ought to vote in this case. Suppose for one moment that a County Council, say, in the North of Wales, were to be composed—[Cries of "Divide!"] He would undertake not to trespass on the time of the Committee for more than a few moments; but perhaps the Committee would allow him to put this case. Suppose for a moment, what was not impossible, that in some of the counties of North Wales County Councils were composed largely of highly conscientious, excellent men, Nonconformist ministers who thought that the payment of tithe was wrong, and were entirely opposed to its payment. So long as tithe was payable, it was, of course, payable by law, and if the people would not pay when the law was set in motion, the police when called upon were bound to assist in carrying it out. Suppose the Chief Constable and the other constables were absolutely under the control and subject to the dismissal by a County Council such as that he had referred to, would it be in human nature either for the Chief Constable or the other constables to dare to act contrary to the wishes of those under whom they served—of those who had the control of their appointments and of their dismissal? Those appeared to him to be practical subjects which they ought to consider. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had asked, rather triumphantly—"Are you going to distrust this body which you are now creating?" No; he did not distrust them; he would not distrust them any more than the right hon. Gentleman himself; but there were certain cases in which people ought not to be judges, and those cases were where their own interests were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not distrust the magistrates. No; but he would distrust them just as much as anyone else, where they were made judges in their own cases. Certainly, with all admiration for the way in which magistrates had fulfilled their duties, if he had had the power to stop them, he never would have allowed them to be judges in game cases. As he objected to the magistrates being judges in their own cases, so he objected to the police, whether the Chief Constable or the other constables, being put under the control or power of the County Councils, against some members of which they might from time to time be called upon to act. He would detain the Committee no further. He was obliged to them for having listened to his remarks, and he could not help feeling that they ought thoroughly to consider the proposal in the Amendment before they agreed to it.

said, he hoped they might now be allowed to divide after a debate which had lasted two hours and a-half.

said, the next Amendment was in his name, to strike out from the fourth Sub-section the words—

"Subject as to the use of buildings by the Quarter Sessions and the Justices to the provisions of this Act respecting the Joint Committee of Quarter Sessions and County Councils."

The clause proposed to give to County Councils certain powers. It transferred to the Councils administrative business at present transacted by the Quarter Sessions in respect of certain matters. Sub-section 4 provided for the transfer to the County Council of the powers of Quarter Sessions with regard to shire halls, county halls, Assize Courts, Judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, Court houses, Justices' rooms, police stations and county buildings, works and property, but this power was subject to their use by the Quarter Sessions under other provisions of the Bill respecting Joint Committees of Quarter Sessions and County Councils. He brought forward the Amendment because he had a strong objection to the principle of dual control by the joint committee which it was proposed to establish, consisting partly of the Justices of the Peace and partly of the County Councils; and just as the principle of the control of the police by such joint committee was open to very grave objection, so he thought that the same dual control as applied to the question of shire halls, county halls, Assize Courts, Judges' lodgings, and so on, was liable to friction and very great abuse. It would be said, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that as these matters related to the administration of justice, therefore it was desirable that the magistrates should have something to say as to the use of these buildings. Well, he took the position himself in the first place, that to retain the existing magistrates as a judicial Body was a mistake, and that they ought to be abolished altogether; but that, of course, he was not going to argue at the present time. Another principle upon which he went, in opposing the dual control intended to be set up, so far as regarded the matters specified in this sub-clause, was that, as those buildings and so forth had to be maintained out of the rates, and as the people were to be taxed for the purpose of providing such rates, it was only proper that their elected representatives should have control over these specified buildings and other places. It was a fundamental principle that was known in the constitution of this country that there should be no taxation without representation, and if it was argued that the magistrates were entitled to share this control, his answer would be that the magistrates, having the opportunity of being elected on the County Councils—an opportunity which they were pretty certain to exercise to the fullest extent, because they would have better opportunities of becoming elected, in all probability than other persons, because they would have greater advantages under municipal nominations under this Bill—would have all the control over these buildings as members of the Councils, either nominated or elected, which they could desire. In view of the great difficulties that would arise, and, in view of the great objections that might exist on many grounds to this principle of dual control by joint committees, he thought that it was undesirable that these buildings and other arrangements should be left under the control of any such joint committee. The principle they went upon was that those who had to pay for these things should be unfettered in their control and use, and that, if the Justices of the Peace wanted the use of those buildings for particular purposes at particular seasons, they should apply to the Councils for permission to use them. Under the clause as it stood, what would happen would be this: county buildings would be entirely under the control of an unrepresentative section of the Councils and unrepresentative magistrates, because it would hardly be denied that the joint committee would, in all probability, consist almost exclusively of the magistrates who had not been, and would not be, the elected members of the Councils. Now, that being so, he thought it would be very hard indeed on the majority of the people in any county that the buildings they had put up there, and which had to be maintained by a rate paid by them, should be entirely and exclusively under the control of those who did not directly represent them. He thought there could be no doubt as to what would be the result. That would happen which was happening to-day in many parts of the country, especially in country districts, at political meetings— namely, that they who represented the party opposite to the parson and the squire were excluded from the only room in villages in which they could possibly hold meetings—that was to say, in the village school-room. That was a great grievance, and just as they felt it to be a grievance in that small matter, so he apprehended the ratepayers would find it a grievance to be excluded from their own buildings through the prejudices of the unrepresentative members of the Council who would constitute one part of the joint committee. It was in order to obviate such difficulties as those, which it was pretty sure were likely to arise, and, in order to insist upon the great principle that the people had a rightto control their own buildings and works and property, that he ventured on this sub-section to enter the strongest protest against the dual control mentioned in this sub-section, and that he ventured to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

said, he did not know whether the hon. Member seriously contemplated the acceptance by the Committee of this Amendment. He (Mr. Long) could assure the Committee that there need be no apprehension of that which the hon. Member referred to—namely, unfair execution of these duties by the joint committees. The only object of the sub-section was to enable the joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and the County Councils to have the use of the buildings mentioned so far as they might be required by either of those Bodies. The Quarter Sessions would have to make use of those buildings for several purposes.

said, that surely the representatives of the ratepayers ought to be supreme in managing the property of the ratepayers. The representatives of the ratepayers were the County Council, and the joint committees would be by no means representative. He did not think that it was in the slightest degree probable that the representatives of the ratepayers would be unreasonable people, and it was in the highest degree likely that they would always allow such use of the county property as was requisite for the carrying out of the law. He thought it was in the highest degree unlikely that any difficulty would arise through the carrying of this Amendment, and he considered it most desirable that the County Council should be supreme on this subject, and should have complete control over the property of the ratepayers.