asked the President of the Board of Trade, Under what circumstances are hospitals on board Transatlantic and foreign-bound passenger carrying steamers permitted to be used, and for what purposes other than hospital purposes; by what means can the Board prevent and detect infringement of its Rules on such vessels after the steamer has left port; on how many Transatlantic steamers are there dispensaries properly fitted up and apart from the hospital or surgeon's room; are precautions always taken that the hospitals are so situated that sick and injured can always, and in all weather, be readily taken there without undue risk or exposure, and do any Rules exist having regard to the location of such hospitals; and, are precautions taken by the Board of Trade Inspectors with respect to the relative positions of the surgeon's cabin and hospitals, that the latter shall be in every weather easy of access to the medical officer?

, in reply, said, he had no knowledge of any cases in which the hospital spaces in the vessels coming under the Passengers Act had been permitted to be used for other than hospital purposes; but in cases of emergency—such as the rescue of a crew and passengers of another ship—any space not required for patients might possibly be so utilized. The Board of Trade had no means of preventing or detecting infringements of its Rules after a vessel had left port; but if any evidence was brought to his notice which would justify a prosecution he would certainly act upon it. The Board of Trade had no power to institute any requirements as to the fitting up or situation of the dispensaries on the Transatlantic steamers; but he understood that the Rules laid down in the Passengers Act were complied with, and that dispensaries were so situated that patients could, in all weathers, be readily taken there without undue risk or exposure. He could give the hon. Member no information as to the relative positions of surgeons' cabin and hospitals. The Board of Trade had no power in the matter.

asked, with reference to the first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, whether it was only under such circumstances as he had described that hospital accommodation would be used in these vessels?

said, that was his belief. He had made the best inquiry in his power into the matter, and he had told the hon. Member all he knew. He would promise the hon. Member that if any infringement that would warrant a prosecution were brought under his notice a prosecution would be at once begun.

explained that he had asked repeatedly this Question, in the hope that the Rules of the Board of Trade would be carried out; and he did it for the benefit of poor emigrants who could not possibly have time to get their grievances remedied themselves.

Order, order!

said, he did not at all complain of the hon. Gentleman's Question. He should be happy to have his attention called to any infringement of the Rules that occurred, and would do everything in his power to enforce the law.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the following cases of police interference with, and intimidation of, street newspaper vendors have occurred in the City of Cork—namely, Denis Desmond (young lad), who refused to sell to a policeman a copy of United Ireland, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, and detained for a short time in Bridewell; Denis M'Carthy (young lad), refused to sell a copy of The Cork Examiner to Police Sergeant Power, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; John Radley (young lad), refused to sell a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner to policeman, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Cornelius Coakley (young lad), arrested for refusing to sell to policeman a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Patrick Bradley (young lad), arrested under circumstances similar to the above by Sergeant Power; Patrick Carleton (young lad), refused to sell a copy of Cork Herald to policeman, arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, and lodged in Bride-well for some time; Michael Murphy (an old man of 70), he refused to sell a copy of the Examiner to policeman on beat, and the policeman kicked the old man's box about, scattered his papers, cuffed the old man, and warned him against selling the newspaper; and, whether, in view of these occurrences, he will order an independent inquiry into these matters?

A man named Denis Desmond, described as a porter, and who was a considerable time ago a newsvendor, was arrested by Constable Lambert on a charge of drunkenness, and subsequently committed to prison in default of payment of a fine of 5s. Denis M'Carthy and John Radley were arrested by Sergeant Power, not for refusing in either case to sell a copy of any newspaper, but for street obstruction and refusing to move on. Cornelius Coakley does not appear to have been arrested at all by Sergeant Power. He was, however, summoned by Constable Barber for stone-throwing in the streets, and fined 5s. Bartholomew (not Patrick) Bradley was arrested, not by Sergeant Power but by Constable Donoghue, for street obstruction, and discharged at the police-court with a caution. Patrick Carleton was not arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, nor can his arrest for any offence be traced. Michael Murphy states that some time ago a policeman gave his box a kick without any cause, but did not touch himself, and that it had nothing to do with the sale of a paper to the policeman. None of the persons named were, therefore, arrested in connection with the sale of, or refusal to sell, the papers, but for other offences; and on the occasion of two of these persons being before the police-court, one of the Local Justices is reported to have said that—

"He took that opportunity of stating that the misconduct of newsvendors in the streets of the city was becoming intolerable, and should be put a stop to."

said, arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, if he laid before the right hon. Gentleman affidavits by the following persons with regard to certain circumstances, would he then undertake to institute the independent inquiry which he had asked for—namely, that Denis Desmond, mentioned in this Question, refused to sell a copy of a newspaper to the constable mentioned. The constable said to him—"I will make you give it. Come along with me." He then took him into custody, and on the way to the Bride-well he asked him—"Will you give me the paper before I put you in?" and having taken the boy as far as the Bridewell he then released him. The affidavit also of John Radley, 17 years of age, who has been selling papers in Cork for a number of years, stated that he was arrested by Sergeant Power, also mentioned in the Question, because he refused to sell him a copy of The Cork Examiner. He was arrested and taken to the Bridewell.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now exceeding the limits of a Question. He is simply making a counter statement.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he laid these affidavits before him would he grant the inquiry?

said, he should be delighted to consider any information the hon. Member laid before him.

asked, what was the meaning of the expression "street obstruction?"

said, it was a well understood definition; but he did not like to give any express meaning to it.

said, with reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these arrests were made for street obstruction, he wished to ask him if it were not the fact that the question of obstruction of the streets had been always left by the Authorities in the hands of the Corporation of Cork; and, also, whether it was not a fact that the arrests on various pretences of men and boys selling newspapers had only begun since the right hon. Gentleman desired to suppress the sale of certain newspapers in Ireland; and, further, whether the arrests of newspaper vendors in Ireland had been discontinued or not?

said, he did not quite catch the drift of the Question. He apprehended that it was the duty of the police to see that street obstruction did not take place.

Arising out of that answer—

Order! Mr. Harris.

(for Mr. HARRIS) (Galway, E.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe suffer great inconvenience for want of a Town Hall that could be used as a place for the transaction of public business; that there are two Halls in the town—namely, the Agricultural Hall and the Farming Society Building, both of which were erected for public uses and in a great degree by public money, but have now passed into the hands of the ground landlords who have rented them to private individuals; and, whether he is aware that the Town Commissioners have been unable to secure the Agricultural Hall as a Town Hall, though they offered to give the same rent for it as is paid at present; and, if so, would the Local Government Board, by their advice or otherwise, aid the townspeople of Ballinasloe in their legal efforts to get possession of this Hall?

The Town Clerk at Ballinasloe states that inconvenience is felt for want of a Town Hall; also that the two Halls referred to are used for commercial purposes; and further, that the landlord of the Agricultural Hall had refused to dispossess the present tenant when the Town Commissioners asked him to rent the building to them. The Local Government Board will give due attention to any application made to them by the Ballinasloe Town Commissioners to sanction a loan to provide a building for a Town Hall. The Board have no further power in the matter.

(for Mr. HARRIS) (Galway, E.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in the most central position in Ballinasloe there are sheds which are used as slaughter-houses, which emit a most offensive odour, dangerous to the health of the town; that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe and the Town Commissioners signed a requisition asking Lord Clancarty to remove those sheds, on the ground that they were a public nuisance, an impediment to the traffic, and a disfigurement to the town; that his Lordship refused, on the ground that they were a market house, in which his family had a vested interest of such a nature that he had no legal right to disturb it, especially as it had relation to the tolls and customs; and, if so, would the Local Government Board interfere and cause the removal of those sheds, and thus prevent the expense of a law-suit?

It appears that the Town Commissioners have made representations to the landlord of the nature indicated in the Question, and that he has declined to act on them for the reasons stated. The Town Clerk, however, reports that at present no offensive odours are emitted from the premises referred to, as the owner has taken steps to keep them in a cleanly condition. The Ballinasloe Urban Sanitary Authority have extensive powers under the Public Health Act to deal with the case of nuisances arising within their district, and it is their duty to remedy any such state of things.

asked, would the Assistant Commissioner be making any inquiry at Ballinasloe as to the market tolls there?

said, he could not answer the Question without Notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Toronto Trades and Labour Council complain that the immigration into Canada of destitute labourers from Great Britain is encouraged by persons in England describing themselves as Government agents; whether William Barlow, of 106a, Market Street, Manchester, correctly describes himself as "Government Immigration Agent," and as "appointed passage broker by the Board of Trade;" and, whether representations circulated by William Barlow as to the state of the labour market in Canada have any official sanction?

, in reply, said, he could give no information as to immigration to Canada. That was rather a Question for the Colonial Department. He gathered from newspaper reports that the Toronto Trades and Labour Council had made the complaint referred to in the Question. The person named William Barlow mentioned in the Question was not, as far as he could learn, included in the records of the Office in the list of licensed passage brokers, who were licensed by the local magistrates under the sanction of the Board; but he was informed that several licensed passage brokers had appointed Barlow as their agent.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the sum of £1,429, referred to in last Tuesday's evidence before the Joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation, as having been paid to the Glasgow Boundaries Commissioners and their clerks, was paid by the Treasury or by the City of Glasgow?

The sum in question was paid by the City of Glasgow.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Lord Advocate whether it is customary for one of the parties interested in the decision of a Commission to recompense the Members of the Commission?

I am not aware.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to an exhaustive experiment made by Messrs. Cope and Co. in the manufacture of an extensive crop of English tobacco grown by Messrs. Carter and Co.; and, whether he will cause an inquiry by experts into the results attending the experiment, with the view, if possible, of relaxing the fiscal restrictions upon the culture of tobacco in Great Britain and Ireland?

Experiments have been made by Messrs. Carter and Co. in the manufacture of cut and roll tobacco from English-grown leaf. Great care appears to have been exercised in the manufacture of the article; but according to the best information which I have been able to obtain, the result has not been very satisfactory. The tobacco is stated to be deficient in flavour and character; but I should be sorry to use any words which would discourage such experiments being tried. I think that it is only experience which will show the value to smokers of this tobacco. No inquiry by experts would be so valuable as a practical test by hon. Members accustomed to smoke; and if hon. Members wish it a sample of this tobacco will be placed in the Smoking Room. I am afraid there can be no change in the Fiscal Regulations, which are not at present unnecessarily stringent. I am anxious to facilitate the progress of these experiments; but the revenue from tobacco is so large that it is impossible to make any form of relaxation that would in no way threaten the Revenue.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that the Sheriff Clerk Depute has been removed from Tobermory to Oban, and has taken with him all the ordinary business, or processes in existence, or connected with the Crofting Registry; and, if this is correct, whether he will direct such business to be returned to Tobermory?

The Sheriff Clerk Depute who was formerly at Tobermory is now removed to Oban, which is to be the seat of the Court for the district; but there will be a Sheriff Clerk Depute at Tobermory, and I shall make inquiry as to the arrangements to be made to prevent any avoidable inconvenience in consequence of the change.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether 400 originating notices to have fair rents fixed have been served in the Bantry District on or about last September; whether only 24 have been listed for hearing; and, whether, in view of the fact that several of the landlords in that district have taken legal proceedings to recover the present exorbitant rents, he will provide a remedy for this state of affairs?

The Land Commissioners inform mo there were 214 applications to fix fair rents lodged with them during the month of September last by tenants in the Poor Law Union of Bantry. A Sub-Commission has been working in the County of Cork since November 1 last, and will continue there until the end of July; but the Commissioners have been unable, consistently with the claims of other Unions, to list more than 25 cases from the Bantry Union. That number includes all applications lodged up to September 26 last. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, the District Inspector of Constabulary reports that, so far as he can at present ascertain, no landlords have taken proceedings to recover rent in the Bantry District in the manner alleged.

said, he was in possession of information to the effect that landlords were taking legal proceedings against these tenants for the recovery of the exorbitant rents.

said, he should be happy to receive any information that the hon. Gentleman could lay before him.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in respect to the Folkestone Jubilee Hospital, he will decide, without delay, either not to sell the site of the disused battery on the "Bayle" at Folkestone for any purposes whatever, or to sell it for the purposes of the much-needed hospital at a price to be stated, or to put it up to auction; and, whether he is aware that the provision of this Jubilee Hospital has been delayed, for want of a site, for a year and a quarter?

(who replied) said: It is not yet decided whether the site of the battery on the Bayle shall be sold or not; but if it is, it will be sold by public auction.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any, and what, funds belonging to the Warwick County Court Department were in the hands of Green-ways' Bank at the time of its stoppage; whether such funds stood in the bankers' books as a public or private account; and, whether any loss to the public will arise therefrom?

The sum of £362 8s. 11d. belonging to the Warwick County Court Department was in the hands of Green-ways' Bank at the time of its stoppage. It stood in the bank books in the name of the Registrar quâ Registrar; and only Court moneys were paid into the account, and only drafts in respect of the Court were drawn upon it. The amount of loss to the public will depend upon the realization of the estate.

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Registrar of the Court was a partner of the defaulting bankers?

said, he did not know whether that was so or not. He was having the whole of the circumstances investigated, with the view of ascertaining whether any further steps should be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet received a Report from the Committee which he appointed to inquire into the accommodation of prisoners awaiting trial at the Metropolitan Police Courts and at other Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay the Report before Parliament?

, in reply, said, he had received the Report, which should be laid on the Table.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in view of the importance of circulating correct information as to the County Constabulary and the principles on which the present establishments were founded, he will order the First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the best means of establishing an efficient Constabulary Force in the Counties of England and Wales, presented in 1839, to be reprinted?

(who replied) said, the Report was of a voluminous character, and its production would be very costly. In view of the fact that all questions affecting the Constabulary in counties would be settled by the House before it could be published, he did not think any advantage would accrue, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press for it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of an eviction in Ireland, which is taken from a London paper:—

"An eviction was carried out yesterday on the property of Mr. Montroy Gledstanes Fardross, Clogher, telegraphs our Dublin correspondent. Nearly 40 police were in attendance. The evicted family numbers six members. One, a blind boy, received the last sacrament last evening, and the father, an old man of 80 years, was so weak and ill as to appear utterly unconscious of what was going on around him. Another son besought the Sub-Sheriff (Mr. McKelvey) to delay the removal of the father from bed till the parish priest might be sent for, as the arrival of McKelvey had taken the family by surprise, but the officer was inexorable. The old man was then transferred from his bed to a cart, in which he was conveyed to the house of a son-in-law, where he received the last sacrament immediately afterwards from the parish priest;"

, in reply, said, he was making local inquiries, and had not yet heard the result. His experience was, however, that these sensational reports were invariably grossly inaccurate.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland, Whether Resident Magistrates Gardiner and Redmond, who on the 31st of May, at Castlemartyr, convicted Thomas Renny of conspiring not to supply goods to a member of the Irish Constabulary, and sentenced him to the fullest term of imprisonment permissible without appeal, were before their appointments as Resident Magistrates officers of the Irish Constabulary; and, for what periods, respectively, did Messrs. Gardiner and Redmond serve in the Irish Constabulary, and what rank did they hold in that force?

Both the Resident Magistrates named served in the Constabulary as officers. Mr. Gardiner served from February 2, 1867, to January 27, 1881; and Mr. Redmond from July 10, 1850, to September 10, 1860. Both held the rank of Sub-Inspector. That title is now changed to District Inspector. Both were declared legally qualified under the Prevention of Crime Act of 1882, and have been likewise declared qualified under the Act of last Session.

asked the Chief Secretary, whether he would in future try to make some provision when an offence against the Constabulary was tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, that ex-Constabulary officers should not exclusively compose the tribunal?

I see no reason why such an arrangement should be made.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe- ther he will allow the terms of the Rule recently made with a view of extending the interpretation of the Treasury Minute of February, 1884, giving exemption from the Inhabited House Duty to tenements under the annual value of £20, to be made public?

The extension which has been made in the concession granted by the Treasury in February, 1884, is as follows:—Where several tenements each structurally separate, and which taken together fall short of £20 annual value, are occupied by the same tenant, they are exempted from payment of duty, just as they would be severally exempt if inhabited by several tenants.

(for Dr. FARQUHARSON) (Aberdeenshire, W.) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any further information to give the House as to the result of the negotiations he has been carrying on with the Swiss Government regarding the rights of English doctors to practise in that country?

I am glad to say that, since the hon. Member last inquired on this subject, it has assumed a more hopeful appearance. There is reason to expect that temporary measures will be adopted by certain Cantonal Authorities, by which British physicians will be enabled to practise, and I hope that a permanent and reciprocal arrangement may be arrived at.

asked, whether it was probable that the more favourable arrangement would apply to the whole of Switzerland, and not merely the excepted parts?

said, no effort would be spared to conclude a satisfactory arrangement. There were, as the hon. Member was aware, considerable difficulties in consequence of the Swiss doctors requiring complete reciprocity, which they could not obtain, unless they were allowed to practise in the British Colonies.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any information concerning the arrest of six tenants—namely, Denis Fitzpatrick, P. Murphy, John Field, Thomas Frawley, Timothy Daly, and Daniel Daly, at Curass, near Kanturk, a short time after midnight of Wednesday last, on a charge of unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy, alleged to have been committed on March 23 last; if he can state why these men were summarily arrested and taken from their beds at this time of night, and not proceeded against in the ordinary way by summons; if he is aware that these men were kept in the police barrack all day on Thursday, from 2 or 3 o'clock a.m. to 7.30 p.m., and then released on bail by Mr. Seagrave, R.M.; and, if these facts are correct, whether he will take steps to prevent untried prisoners in Ireland from being exposed to similar treatment in future?

The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that the prisoners were arrested at about 2 a.m. The matter referred to is, I understand, one that rests in the discretion of the magistrate before whom the informations are laid. The delay in granting bail was due to the absence of the Resident Magistrate at Buttevant Petty Sessions, from which he was unable to return until about 6 p.m. on the day in question. I have given to the House all the information I have been able to obtain, but I will cause further inquiry to be made.

said, with reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these men were arrested and taken from their bed at night, he wished to ask him why it was that the Government had waited about three months, and then arrested these men and took them from their beds at night, though they immediately afterwards assented to their release on bail?

I have stated just now that I have given all the in- formation I possess to the House; but I am making further inquiries.

asked, was not the town of Kanturk in telegraphic communication with London, and had not the Question been down on Friday afternoon?

said, the hon. Gentleman was paying him an overpowering compliment; because, in spite of assurance that he had given all the information he could, the hon. Member still refused to believe his ignorance.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Resident Magistrate, though absent in this case, had been conveniently present at midnight in other cases to send men to gaol?

said, he knew the Resident Magistrate had been at Petty Sessions.

gave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday, as he did not believe in the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the facts that upwards of £110,000 of public money has been expended on the harbour at Rosslare and on the railway leading thereto; that the Select Committee of this House on Harbour Accommodation reported in 1884 that the case of Rosslare Harbour was deserving the attention of the Treasury; and that the Royal Commission appointed by the present Government has also reported in favour of its completion, the Government will take a Vote for that purpose during the present Session?

(who replied) said: The recommendation of the recent Royal Commission on Public Works was qualified by the condition that the Harbour of Rosslare should be brought under the same management as that of Wexford. I have no information as to whether such a course would be acceptable to the Local Harbour Authorities at Wexford; and at present, therefore, I do not see my way to re-open the question of a further advance for an extension of the works at Rosslare.

said, he thought that, in discussing this clause, an arrangement might be made by which the opinion of the House might be taken first upon the question of the control of the police before the question of the appointment of Chief Constable was disposed of. He would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that, in his opinion, this would be best done by striking out the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect." His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would then move to insert the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to insert after the word "respect," in line 12, the words "county police or." The sentence would then read—"The powers, duties, and liabilities of Quarter Sessions with respect to the county police or," and the whole question of the control of the police would then be raised by a subsequent Motion to leave out the words, "giving the Quarter Sessions power of appointment, controlling, and dismissing the Chief Constables." By adopting that mode the Committee would get rid of a good deal of confusion, and would be able to come to a conclusion on the matter which was discussed last night. Under these circumstances he proposed to assent to the Amendment now before the Committee to omit the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect." By taking this course the entire question would be raised as to who should have the control of the county police and the appointment of Chief Constable. If the words giving the "appointment, control, and dismissal of Chief Constables to the Quarter Sessions" were omitted, it would then be better to omit the following words down to the word "to" in line 18, namely—

"And the powers of quarter sessions under section seven of the County and Borough Police Act, 1856, to direct and require constables to perform any duties in addition to their ordinary duties, may be exercised both by quarter sessions and by the county council; but subject as aforesaid, the powers, duties, and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to."

"The duties and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to the county police shall be, on and after the appointed day, vest in and attach to the quarter sessions and the county council jointly, and be exercised and discharged through the standing joint committee of the quarter sessions and county council appointed as hereinafter mentioned."

said, he thought if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would carry out the views of the Government, but how was it proposed to deal with the "appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables?"

said, that provision would have to be made in that respect afterwards. He was only afraid that they might get confused if they were to attempt to amend the words between. The course he suggested would obviate that difficulty.

said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after "chief constables," the words "or assistant chief constables." He desired to know how that Amendment would be affected.

said, if the words proposed to be struck out were omitted, there would be an understanding that they were not struck out adversely, and could be re-instated.

asked if the President of the Local Government Board could not state to the Committee what the ultimate intention of the Government was in regard to the control of the police and the Chief Constable.

said, his only object in the suggestion he had made was to afford facilities for coming to a conclusion upon both of these points. He understood from the tone of the discussion last night that it was considered desirable to arrive at a conclusion in reference to the proposal to transfer the control of the police from the Quarter Sessions before they dealt with the question of the appointment of Chief Constables. As the hon. Gentleman asked him what the intentions of the Government were, he might say that they proposed to recommend to the Committee to adhere to the proposals of the Bill.

said, the Committee were to understand, then, that the Government adhered to the proposals contained in the Bill, and that all other points beyond were left open for the ultimate discussion of the Committee.

said, the Government intended to adhere to the proposal for vesting the control of the police in a joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Council.

, in moving, in page 5, line 12, after the word "respect," to insert "the county police or," said, he was glad to have this opportunity of placing, as clearly as he was able, some considerations before the Committee why he thought the county police should remain entirely under the control of the magistrates, as they had hitherto been. He was strongly fortified in that opinion by the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). That right hon. Gentleman, in one of the clear and lucid speeches he generally delivered, had stated that he believed it would be for the interest of all parties concerned that the police should be under one control. If, then, they could not get the one authority be desired, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept the other. The House had already decided by a majority, upon the Motion of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), not to accept the control of the County Council. Therefore the matter remained now in the position in which the Government first introduced the Bill—namely, that the police, as far as the Chief Constable was concerned, should be in the hands of the magistrates; but as far as the management of the police was concerned that it should be in the hands of a joint committee of the magistrates and the County Councils. He was of opinion that that was an unwise proposal, and it was because he thought that it would be far more to the interests of the country that the police should be under the undivided authority of the Quarter Sessions that he was glad to have an opportunity of stating his views upon the subject. When the question of the divided control was last under discussion nearly every Member who got up to take part in the debate, from both sides of the House, thought it would be a most unwise change. If it was unwise then, assuredly it was unwise now, and it should not be said because it was the control of the magistrates that they were now discussing that there were any more grounds for dividing the control than there had been previously. Looking at the case broadly, he thought he had good authority for saying that there had never been any accusation brought against the conduct of the police or of the magistrates over the police, but, on the contrary, they had hoard, and they heard it when the Bill was first introduced, that not only had the magistrates done their duty, but that in all they had done, both as to economical management and the maintenance of order, there was nothing to find fault with in reference to their control of the police. Such being the case, before Parliament consented to take the management out of their hands and hand it over to another authority, surely they ought to consider carefully all the circumstances of the case. He had no wish to enter into very grave and debatable matters, but still this was the only opportunity they would have, and he would ask any man whether there were not parts of the country in which, if the police were in the hands of the County Council, very grave effects might be produced upon the police. He thought that was one of the matters they were bound to consider—namely, whether the handing over of the police to the County Councils would be the wisest and most prudent step they could possibly take. His own view was that it would not be the wisest or most prudent course to hand over the control of the police to any elected and fluctuating body like the Town Councils, and thus remove them from the control of the magistrates, who were magistrates for their lives, and who carried on their duties from day to day and from year to year upon the same footing. There was another matter which he ought to mention which he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton would regard as germane to this subject. His own opinion was that the question deserved more consideration than was given to it at the time it was previously discussed, and that it required more careful consideration than ever now. No doubt they would be able to discuss it very fully when they came to a subsequent clause. But it was now proposed to take out of the counties all towns with 50,000 inhabitants. The effect of that was to get rid of one of the reasons why County Government had been given—namely, that they would have the towns that were situated in the counties associated with the rural portions of the counties. They were now going to have the county without any of the large constituencies, and he should like to know whether the men, other than magistrates, who would be left to carry on the business would be persons who were most fit and proper to undertake it. There was another and most serious matter, with regard to which he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question. There were certain duties which would have to be collected in the district. Would the police have anything to do with the levying and collection of such duties? Would they be so employed or would they not? It was a very serious question in the administration of the law whether these men were to be employed to raise the duties which were to be handed over to the Councils by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially when it was considered that the large towns were to be struck out. He had no wish to detain the Committee too long, but there was another question which he desired to mention, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was in his place. The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee a good many dissertations on this great question. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he were not much mistaken something of the same kind was repeated a short time ago by one in whose authority the right hon. Gentleman placed implicit trust—namely, that if these proposals were carried by the Government and the appointment of Chief Constables were left in the hands of the magistrates, when the Liberal Party came into power again they would reverse the decision of the majority. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He was delighted to hear that cheer. He trusted it would go forth to the country with all its force that the House of Commons, in the year 1888, for the first time in history, declared that it would not accept the decision of the majority of the House, but that it would do all in its power to reverse that decision, notwithstanding the fact that it was come to by a large majority. But hon. Members remembered how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought forward his great measure with regard to Ireland. What did the right hon. Gentleman state then? He said upon every point that it was a vital question, and that if he were not supported he would throw up the Bill. It would have been far better if the Government had taken the same course in regard to the present Bill. Much as the Conservative Party disliked the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was in power they had loyally accepted and carried it out. It was an entirely new and unconstitutional doctrine to get up in that House and state that if they were unfortunate enough to be defeated on the other side they would take the earliest opportunity of reversing the decision when they came into power again. He had thought it right to say so much. The Conservative Party always took their beating when they were beaten; but, at the same time, they were always ready to defend the lines of conduct they pursued, and, believing that the best interests of the country depended on the control of the police remaining in the hands which had hitherto so well administered it, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

desired to say a word or two in reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet, although it was difficult to do so, he was afraid, consistently with Order. As he understood the position, it had been decided against hon. Members on that side of the House that the control of the police and the appointment of the High Constable should not be handed over to the County Councils, but he trusted that he might be allowed to say a word or two in reply to some of the arguments and statements of the hon. and gallant Baronet. The hon. and gallant Baronet was held in the highest esteem on the Opposition as well as on the Ministerial side of the House. He spoke from very long knowledge of the hon. and gallant Baronet in that House. He had never been known to be otherwise than straight and decided and honest in the expression of his views, and he was a man for whom they naturally entertained an unwavering respect. He made no complaint of the course the hon. and gallant Baronet had pursued on this occasion. Everybody knew that the hon. and gallant Baronet did not like the Bill, that he strongly objected to the transfer of these powers from the magistrates to the County Councils in the future, and he was, therefore, consistent in the line he had taken. But the Government had taken another line; they recognized that there was a great demand on the part of the public for a representative county constituency; they had acceded to that demand, or intended to accede to it, in the constitution of the County Councils. They had not carried out that principle, however, in the present clause. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House differed from them, and had been beaten, but they had, nevertheless, a right to maintain their opinion. The hon. and gallant Baronet proposed that the police should be left under the control of the Quarter Sessions, and that they should not be handed over to a joint committee of Quarter Sessions and County Councils. As far as the Opposition were concerned, they entirely agreed that it would have been better for the police and the Chief Constables to be left under one authority, if that authority were the County Councils, because they found under the existing law that the magistrates were called upon to perform duties in connection with the maintenance of law and order which they claimed in future for the County Councils, so that they should be modelled on the pattern of the Borough Councils in regard to the administration of police affairs. That was the position of hon. Members on that side of the House. At present they were left in this condition. They had been defeated in that respect, and the question was whether they should vote for the retention of all the powers relating to the police in the hands of the magistrates at Quarter Sessions, or whether they should prefer, although they did not like it, the Government proposal that the police and the Chief Constables should be supervised and managed by a joint committee of two Bodies. Of the two proposals he, at least, preferred that of the Government. He did not prefer it because he liked it. He disliked it exceedingly, and he saw no sufficient justification for it. It appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent with the principles right hon. Gentlemen laid down in the Bill, and he was perfectly justified in notifying to the House, judging as well as he could of the feeling and temper of the Liberal Party both inside and outside the House, that it must not be expected that these proposals wore to be permanently and definitely accepted without some attempt to reverse them on some future occasion. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that this was the first time—namely, the year 1888, when such a doctrine had been propounded. He differed entirely from the hon. and gallant Baronet. If he had used it in the way of a threat in order to induce hon. Members to vote with him rather than with the Government, he might have been open to that remark; but his argument was not in the least in the nature of a threat, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Baronet would know that he was not disposed to offer a threat on any occasion. His object had simply been to point out that as far as the Liberal Party, not only in the House, but in the country, were concerned, they were deeply convinced in their own mind of the truth of the principle that the control of the police, whether in the boroughs or in the counties, subject to the proper authority of the magistrates in calling upon them to fulfil the duties laid down by law, should be vested in the hands of those who paid for them—namely, the representative bodies of the towns and counties. He, therefore, could not hold out any expectation that the arrangement would be a permanent one, and that a future opportunity would not be taken for amending these proposals. He had yet to learn that there was anything unconstitutional or novel in announcing to the House that when they got the opportunity they would seek to amend the Bill in a direction which they so greatly desired. He had, therefore, nothing to apologize for or correct in the statement he had made. He had no doubt that the opportunity he desired would occur, and it was a fundamental article of the Liberal creed, whether in the Metropolis in the provincial boroughs, or in the counties that the police should be nominated, appointed, controlled, and paid by the representatives of the people. Although they might be beaten on this occasion he repeated his assertion that on some future day an endeavour would be made to amend the Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a fundamental article of the Liberal creed, whether in the country or in the Metropolis, that the police should be in the hands of the ratepayers. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long that had been a fundamental article in the Liberal creed, because he remembered a Bill being brought in a very few years ago, when it was quite true that the Liberal Party were not identified with all the opinions and views of the Liberal Party now, for the Government of the Metropolis by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) which proposed to ignore its fundamental article altogether. Therefore he might assume that this fundamental article was one which had been grafted on the Liberal creed since the introduction of the Bill of the right hon. Member for Derby. He did not express any astonishment on that fact. He knew perfectly well that many other articles besides that had now become fundamental articles of the Liberal creed which at that time were being denounced by the Liberal Party of the day. He did not intend to make any further remarks on that point, but he had thought it worthy of comment that this article which was now set up as essentially a part of the Liberal creed, was deliberately set aside in the legislation inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Derby. The right hon. Gentleman recognized that there were circumstances in which it was not desirable to transfer the control of the police force to a body elected by the ratepayers. That was practically what the Government suggested now. In their proposal they recognized that the police had hitherto been under the control of a body of gentlemen who, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, had performed their duties in a manner which had received the commendation of all parties in the country, and they did not think it would be right or prudent all at once, at any rate, to alter entirely that condition of things, and take away from that Body which had so effectively controlled the police in the past the powers they now possessed in order to hand them over to the new Body about to be created. The question now before the Committee was the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend that the entire control of the police should remain in the hands of the magistrates. He could quite understand his hon. and gallant Friend having that view. He found no fault with him for entertaining it or that many of his hon. Friends should agree with the hon. and gallant Baronet in his opinions. He could readily understand that there were arguments of an extremely strong character which might be used in support of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet. Certainly no charge could be substantiated or even made against the administration of the police by the Quarter Sessions, but the Committee were aware that the Government were proposing to set up in the counties a Body elected by the ratepayers for the purpose of performing many of the duties within the counties which had hitherto been performed by the magistrates. The question arose then, whether having set up such a Body—a Body representative of the ratepayers, was no share to be given to them in the management and control of the police? Having set up such a Body which was to have the control of the rates, and would have practically to find the money for the payment of the police, were they to say that they were not to give to it the management of the police for which the ratepayers had to provide the money? The Government did not think it was possible for them to make such a proposal as that, and, therefore, they proposed to associate with the Quarter Sessions elected representatives of the ratepayers. In that suggestion they believed they found a solution of the question as to what should be the relative shares of the old and new Bodies in the control of the police. That being their view, and that being the proposal of the Bill, he was sorry to say to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government were unable to accept the proposals which he made, and which would relegate entirely to the Quarter Sessions the control of the police.

said, that as he had had an opportunity of speaking upon this question before, he would not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but he was bound to say that when his right hon. Friend, in opposing the Amendment, dwelt on the fact that the Government were going to create by this Bill a new Body to be elected by the ratepayers, and asked how it was possible to give some share in the control of the police to the new Body. Surely, if that argument were good for anything at all it was good for giving the whole control of the police to the new Body. The Committee had three proposals before them. There was the proposal of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to hand over the police to the County Councils as a Body. Then there was the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend that the control should remain as at present with the Quarter Sessions, and, thirdly, there was the proposal of the Government by which he understood they intended to sub-divide the responsibility connected with the police—for while the Chief Constable was to remain entirely under the control of the Quarter Sessions, the police themselves were to be handed over to the control of a joint committee. The proposal of the Government was that the appointment, dismissal, and control of the Chief Constable should remain with the Quarter Sessions, and his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had informed the Committee that the Government intended to adhere to that proposal. Now, he could perfectly understand both of the first two proposals. It was a perfectly logical proposal, and, perhaps, it might be one that might work well, that the management of the police should be entrusted entirely to the County Councils. Then, again, experience had already proved that the sole control left in the hands of the Quarter Sessions might be expected to work equally well in the future as in the past; but, he did not understand the proposal of the Government to give the control of the police to a perfectly new Body, but rather to place them under the control of three distinct authorities. The Chief Constable was to be appointed by the Quarter Sessions, the police were to be paid by the County Council, and were to be managed by a joint committee. Was it reasonable to suppose that an arrangement of that kind was likely to turn out to be a practical and business-like arrangement? The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfield) said, that he preferred of the two proposals now before the Committee, that which was suggested by the Government. Why was that? Was it on the ground that it was a business-like proposal that was likely to work well? Nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had carefully guarded himself against saying anything of the sort. He supported it on the ground of sentiment, because it was one of the new fangled articles of faith which of late years had become fashionable with the Liberal Party. For these reasons he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, and he hoped that he would be accompanied into the Lobby by many other hon. Members. He was bound to say that there was one other consideration which had great weight with him. When they were going to make a change of this kind they ought to be able to give some good reason for it. No Member of the House, sitting on any Bench, had as yet said anything which might lead them to believe that there was any reason to be advanced in favour of the change. No complaint had ever been made by anybody as to the manner in which the control of the police had been conducted by the Quarter Sessions up to the present time, and althought that was the case, and although the Committee had definitely decided already that the control was not to be transferred to the County Councils—despite all that, it was proposed by the Government, and he confessed very greatly to his regret, to hand over the management of the police for the future to a dual control which he could not regard as anything but an unpractical and unbusiness-like proposal.

said, he cordially supported the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex. He could not help agreeing with a remark which fell from the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) yesterday, when he said that, having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Halifax, he was of opinion that it was an argument in favour of the existing system. So far as he had been able to hear that speech, and it was very difficult at times to hear the speeches delivered on the Front Bench, he had arrived at a similar conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the nature of the duties the police had to perform, and he had spoken of them in such a way as to convince him that it was undesirable to make any alteration in the management of that body which, on the whole, was admitted on all sides to have worked remarkably well. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian appeared to think that some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were supporting the existing system simply because it was an existing institution, and had pointed out to the House, no doubt correctly, that the system itself was not founded on constitutional usage. He submitted, however, that the question for consideration was not so much how long the system had been at work, but whether it had worked well—and he ventured to say that there was no hon. Member on the other side of the House who would be bold enough to assert—and they were not unaccustomed to the making of bold assertions—that the management of the police by the magistrates had not been, on the whole, as good as could possibly be desired. He supported the Amendment on behalf of a class of persons who were more deeply interested in the matter than any other—namely, the police themselves. He contended that if the proposal of the Government for a dual control were adopted the police would encounter great difficulties in the execution of their duties. Hitherto the police had performed those duties, arduous and difficult as they were, with patience, energy, and a scrupulous fidelity which was beyond praise. But they would be asking them to do what he maintained they had no right to ask any man to do—namely, to serve two masters. They had the highest authority for saying that it was impossible to do that. He thought that of the four courses that were open for the Commission to take the proposition of the hon. and gallant Baronet was decidedly the best; but if, unhappily, it should be beaten, he, for one, convinced as he was of the great danger which would attend dual control, would decidedly prefer that the duties should be undertaken by the Home Office. The worst course that could possibly be devised was that of the Government for subjecting the management of the police to dual control. They were asked to adopt a system and principle which not one of them would carry out in his own private affairs. Would any man employing a butcher, a baker, or a tailor, discharge anyone of them who had given him perfect satisfaction in order to employ someone else of whom he knew nothing. He hoped that, in the discussion which would take place, something would be done to avert the danger which would arise from the innovation proposed by the Government.

said, that the argument which had just been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was just the argument which was always adduced against every reform proposed either from the Ministerial or the Opposition Benches. Hon. Members were invariably opposed to all progress and all change, whether in relation to home government, or the government of the Empire at large. The arguments which had been adduced were the same as those which were always used, and amounted to this—that everything which now existed was satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not, however, taken note of the fact that the people had now a voice in the government of the country. They had already received the electoral franchise, and the Government now proposed to transfer to them the administration of their local affairs. Could it then be contended, for a moment, that the taking of the control of the police out of the hands of the County Councils would be giving them that proper administration of their own affairs which was claimed for them? The only argument which had been used in favour of letting the management of the police remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions was that the magistrates themselves were charged with the duty of maintaining law and order. That was a fair argument as far as it went, but it was a very limited argument, and altogether unequal to the gravity of the position. He admitted that the duty of maintaining peace was in the hands of the magistrates; but hon. Members opposite spoke of the maintenance of law and order as if the 60,000 inhabitants of a town were so many enemies of order, and were and were only to be kept in subjection by the control of the magistrates and their servants, the police. He wished to point out this elementary truth, that a few magistrates and a small body of police would be absolutely impotent to preserve order unless the remaining 59,990 inhabitants were equally charged with the maintenance of order. He maintained that every honest citizen had devolved upon him just as much as a magistrate or a policeman the duty of maintaining order and peace in a community. If the bulk of the people were in reality the enemies of law and order, the work undertaken by the police it would be impossible for them to discharge. An ordinary number of policemen was about one to 1,000 of the inhabitants, and there was scarcely a rural district in England where there was not one policeman to 2,000 inhabitants. If the people were allowed to manage their affairs for themselves, they could do that with half the number of policemen who were now required. By the way in which they were now employed they contrived to make crime instead of diminishing it. They were engaged in the most trivial and unworthy occupations, and many of them were spies and game-keepers for the landed interest of the country. [Cries of "Oh!"] He spoke from a point of view from which hon. Gentlemen opposite had never observed these things. If they would lay aside their state and dignity and look at the question from the cottage point of view, instead of the palace and mansion point of view, they would be able to understand these things fairly enough. He intended to vote against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex, simply because its object was to leave the control of the police in the hands of the magistrates. The Government had already defeated a far more logical proposition that the whole matter should be handed over to the County Councils, but he should now vote with the Government, because they recognized to a limited extent the right of the ratepayers to have a voice in the matter. He looked upon it as the thin end of the wedge, and hoped to see it driven home by-and-bye.

said, he wished to repudiate the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and especially the accusation that the county magistrates employed the police as spies and game-keepers. He did not believe that anyone with justice could accuse the English county magistrates of having made use of the police force in the unworthy manner suggested. What was the prospect of any finality if the Government adhered to the clause as it stood? He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that, after what they had heard from the opposite side of the House, there would be no finality whatever in their proposals. The Opposition declared their intention, as soon as they possibly could, of using their utmost endeavour to secure that the police force should be placed entirely in the hands of the County Council. Therefore, they could reckon when the swing of the pendulum came round, as it inevitably would in the course of nature, and hon. Members opposite were sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, the present proposals of the Government would be brought under review, and there would be a fresh agitation on the subject. That, he thought, would be a very bad thing, and therefore he should support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. A short time ago he had been given to understand, by the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board, that it was intended, in appointing a joint committee, to have a sufficient number of magistrates upon it, to insure that they would practically have the chief voice in administering the affairs of the police. All he could say was, that if that was the case, the County Councils, having found out that they were in a minority and that they had no real voice in controlling the police, would commence an agitation which would certainly be detrimental to the interests of that most useful body. The police were a body enrolled for the enforcement of judicial decrees, and they ought, therefore, to be under the control of a judicial executive. There were many matters which must inevitably come before the joint committee. Take the case of the pension of a constable, who might have rendered himself unpopular by the fearless discharge of his duties; or, on the other hand, too popular by the slack manner in which he discharged them. In such a case the pension awarded to that man might be materially affected by the popularly elected character of the tribunal before which the question would have to come. There was another point which ought not to be lost sight of. Most hon. Members had been speaking to their constituents, and assuring them that they wished for equal laws, both for the Sister Island and themselves. If such a state of things were to be brought about that the County Councils would eventually have the control of the police, were they prepared to carry out that matter to its logical conclusion, and hand over the control of the police to County Councils in the Sister Island? He admitted that the police in Ireland were paid from the taxes, and were under the Crown; and he was not prepared to say it would not be the best solution of the question if they were to be placed in the same position on this side of the Channel. Be that as it might, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who said that no man could serve two masters, and in this case there were not only two masters, but three. He was afraid that the chances of the success of this part of the Bill were very small indeed, and therefore he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex.

said, that having had considerable experience in the management of the police as a member of borough Watch Committees, and as a county magistrate, he desired to say a few words. The police force of the county of Stafford was one of the finest bodies of men in England; but although that was the case, and although it was exceedingly well managed by the county magistrates, he, for one, would be quite willing to hand over the control of the force to the County Councils. By this Bill they were creating a new Governing Body, and it was always understood that this Governing Body would have a large amount of work imposed upon it. It seemed to him, however, that this Amendment was an attempt to reduce the amount of work that was to be placed in the hands of the County Councils. It had been urged that it was desirable to secure upon the County Councils men of high standing and of business habits, who would be qualified to do work; but if they were to whittle all the duties away in this manner they would not be able to attract good and efficient men to serve on the Councils. He should be glad to do away with the dual control, and to give the entire management to the County Council; but if that could not be done, he should support the Government clause as it stood.

said, that although he had the honour of being a county magistrate and of serving on the Court of Quarter Sessions, he felt that the Amendment would be a mistake in the future carrying out of the Bill. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart), should have felt it his duty to make an attack on the magistrates. Although he was one of those who neither lived in a mansion or a palace, he believed, like all the other magistrates in his district, that he endeavoured to do his duty in the best way he possibly could. The hon. Member said that the action of the police increased crime; but if he attended the Petty Sessions of the country he would find that crime was decreasing on every side. These matters, however, did not fall within the scope of the present discussion, and, therefore, he would proceed at once to explain why he opposed the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet, whose experience was so much greater than his own. He was opposed to the Amendment, because he considered that, if it were carried, it would set up a dual control, and he knew that many hon. Members were opposed to the Government clause because they thought it would introduce a dual control. Now, he, on the contrary, thought that if some such plan were not introduced there would be dual control. The County Councils would have the voting of the supplies for the police which the Quarter Sessions would administer. It was clear that the representatives of the ratepayers would not be satisfied with merely voting the money, without having some account from the Quarter Sessions of their stewardship. In that House hon. Members objected to pass Votes in regard to matters upon which they were unable to express their opinions. That would be the case of the County Councils, and whenever a vote for the police was proposed a discussion would arise which could not be satisfactory. Although there might be members of the Quarter Sessions upon the County Councils, it would not be officially represented. Therefore, he felt that a difficulty would arise, because they would have the Quarter Sessions administering the money, while the power of raising it would rest with the representatives of the ratepayers, who would have no voice whatever in the matter. Small questions, such as pensions or dismissals and others, would be continually arising, and would cause considerable bitterness between the County Councils and the Quarter Sessions. It should, therefore, be their effort to prevent the irritation which might arise from a dual control, and, in his opinion, no such irritation would arise if the management were entrusted to a joint committee as proposed by the Government. He certainly believed that if the administration of the police were left entirely in the hands of the magistrates a considerable amount of irritation would arise outside, and there would be agitation both in the market place and upon the village green, both upon little questions and great questions. He would far rather see all questions, whether of police pensions or any other matter, discussed by men of business of all shades of opinion in committee than subjected to public meetings and agitation outside. He thought the Commit- tee ought to settle satisfactorily the question of the administration of the police, as by the plan proposed by the Government, while the ratepayers would be represented, they would have the advantage of a considerable number of the most experienced members of the Court of Quarter Sessions.

said, the speech of his hon. Friend was rather a speech in favour of handing over the whole of the administration of the police to the County Councils, which the House by vote had already decided against, and, therefore, it was impossible to go back upon it. In supporting the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, he did so upon rather different grounds from those which his hon. and gallant Friend and others had placed before the Committee. In reconstructing their local administration they should aim at simplicity. Yet by the Bill it was proposed that they should have, not a dual control nor a triple control, but, in fact, a quadruple control over the police. There would be a joint committee, a County Council, the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, over all, the Home Office; for if they looked at the 24th clause they would find that the power of the Home Office was far greater and more important than any of the powers given to the other three Bodies. Anyone who had had anything to do with police management in the counties knew that the power of the magistrates in Quarter Sessions over the police was very slight indeed. They exercised the privilege of appointing the Chief Constable, but as soon as they had appointed him the control over both him and the police passed out of their hands So far as the patronage in the appointment of the Chief Constable was concerned, it would reside better in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which was composed of nominees of the Crown, the members of which were liable to be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, than in any elected Body. He spoke from his own experience, from what he had seen, heard, and read, and from circumstances in which he had taken part, and he had no hesitation in saying that the patronage of the Court of Quarter Sessions was carefully and prudently exercised, and that it was quite free from political bias; whereas an elected committee of the County Council would never be free from poli- tical bias. All the elections they well knew would be fought on political lines, and most of the representatives of the County Councils would be elected on account of their political opinions. For these reasons he was in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The President of the Local Government Board said that the County Councils ought to have some authority over the police, because they would provide the money for their maintenance. That was not so. The police would be hereafter maintained out of the £5,000,000 of subventions, proposed to be handed over out of the taxes for the relief of the ratepayers. Therefore, that argument fell to the ground.

said, he wished to explain the reasons why he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet. He could not help thinking that if the Government had an opportunity of seeing the different extracts from the Vernacular Press of Wales which had been sent to him, they would not have the intention they appeared to have to retain their own clause. It was impossible for any person in that House to ignore the fact that most lamentable disturbances had taken place in the Principality. There were many persons who conscientiously objected to the payment of tithe, and, at the same time, it was absolutely necessary, when they refused to pay it, that the assistance of the police should be, from time to time, called in. Remarks had been made from time to time by different speakers in the Principality as to what they would do when they got the power, and had the control of the police in their own hands. In the county which he represented, during the time the disturbances were going on, requisitions were sent to the county magistrates, calling upon them to reduce the number of police, on the ground that the county did not require so many; but, in point of fact, there were too few police constables already. Under these circumstances, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact. In Wales the chances were that a greater portion of the County Councils would be composed of gentlemen who conscientiously objected to the payment of tithes, and conscientiously objected to the employment of the police in levying tithes. They were conscien- tious men, and, therefore, he did not blame them for following up their principles; but, as conscientious men, they would do all they could to prevent the police from being employed on such occasions. The police, however, would be under the orders of the Chief Constable; and, supposing that the appointment of Chief Constable remained as they proposed by the Bill in the hands of Quarter Sessions, they would have the control of the police resting with the County Councils, while the Chief Constable would be under the management and control of an entirely different Body. The police would feel themselves compelled to obey the orders of the Chief Constable, and in doing so they would know that they were acting against the wishes and against the principles of the bulk of the County Councils, so that when the question of dismissal or pensions arose their interests were likely to be materially injured. For these reasons he could not help thinking that the police force ought to be entirely under the control of the Quarter Sessions. The arguments in favour of keeping the police force in the hands of that Body were absolutely overwhelming.

said, he moved to leave out all the words from "respect," in line 12, to "respect," in line 18, the effect of the Amendment being to take from the Quarter Sessions the appointment, control, and dismissal of Chief Constables.

asked, if the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper would be safeguarded in the event of this Amendment being carried?

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member would be safeguarded.

said, the Amendment standing in his name was intended to place the county police under the authority of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department. A good deal had been said in the course of the discussion about trusting the people in the matter of the police. That argument was founded on a misconception. The only persons who really trusted the people were himself and those who agreed with him; for they did not trust the people in a fragmentary way; they trusted the people, the whole people, and nothing but the people—that was to say, the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland as represented in Parliament. It was not wise, but dangerous, to trust matters of large responsibility to small sections of the people, but there was no danger whatever in trusting the people as a whole. He hoped that, instead of this sectional trust of the people, they would carry out the principle he had explained by leaving out the words which vested the powers and duties with respect to the county police in the bands of a local Council, and substitute for them the words "Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department," whom they had in that House, whom they could command and trust, and whom, if they did not trust, they could displace. In a comparatively short space of time the provisions of the Bill might be applied to Ireland. He would like to know whether any Member of that House would be willing to place the police of Ireland under local popular control? The people of London were as intelligent as any people, and yet it was not deemed safe that they should have the control of their own police. There was an absurdity in placing the responsibility for the prevention of crime in the hands of 120 different establishments; the prevention of crime was an Imperial duty which extended to the whole country. If a protected Prime Minister were to travel from London to Edinburgh with the ordinary stoppages for making speeches, he would come under the surveillance of a dozen different police forces. He would like to support what he said by the statements of the Royal Commissioners when the Constabulary was first founded in 1839. They said that by separate and independent management in counties there must be expense, trouble, and inconvenience, such as had been attendant upon the old system of management by parish constables. The old system of elective constables had one supporter in the House—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who seemed to think that the ancient and barbarous methods of maintaining law and order should be still adhered to. The Commissioners also stated that separate local police establishments would be inadequate, inefficient, and very expensive. The time bad now arrived when a great step in advance might be made by establishing one Imperial force. The Commissioners summed up their objections to the present system by saying that with 52 different forces there would be 52 conflicting modes of action, and that any mea- sure which did not tend to the establishment of one force and one system throughout the country would end in comparative inefficiency, greater expense, and the creation of local animosities. His proposal, therefore, was to enlarge the powers of the Home Office, and to get rid of the mischiefs which were pointed out in tins most valuable Report of the Commissioners. Hon. Gentlemen on these Benches were desirous of efficiency and anxious for economy; but he was bound to say that the method of administration proposed by the Government in this Bill made efficiency and economy quite impossible. Having, he believed, said sufficient to recommend his Amendment to the Committee, he had only to point out that there was a precedent for this proposal in the case of the prisons, which had been placed successfully under Government control 12 years ago.

said, he was very far indeed from saying that there was not a good deal to be urged in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend; but, looking at the discussion which had already taken place with reference to the control of the police, he thought his hon. Friend would hardly expect that the Government would recede from the position they had taken up in that respect. He thought it would also be seen that the Committee, having come to a conclusion adverse to placing the police under the control of the Judicial Body under which they now were, was hardly likely to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend would understand that he did not propose to trouble the Committee again with the various arguments which had been advanced on this subject during the discussion that had taken place, and he would only say, further, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, he rose to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), whom he would congratulate upon the extreme frankness of his statement. He was not, however, able to congratulate him so much upon his remarks in reference to the control of the police. He (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) would point out that there were two places in the country, and two only, where the police were in collision with the people—namely, Ireland and the Metropolis, and in those places the police were under the direct control of the Crown. He thought that the duty of answering the hon. Gentleman devolved upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary rather than on himself; but, as he was on friendly terms with the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to protest emphatically against another unpleasant duty being placed upon him. He might also suggest that if the hon. Gentleman did not feel it right to vote for the alternative system he should place the police under the control of the Emperor of Japan.

said, that outside London there were parts of counties extending 15 miles from Charing Cross where the police were under the control of the Home Secretary. He did not see why the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should not apply to the counties outside London, and it was his intention to move an Amendment with that object.

said, the Division which had taken place not only had the effect of knocking the Government out of time, but also of knocking the sense out of the clause. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, the hon. Member had placed before them a proposal which might be worthy of the consideration of the Committee; but considering that, as had been pointed out more than once in the discussion, the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been to bring the people of the Metropolis into collision with the police, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite would be the very last thing which it would be their duty to entertain. The hon. Gentleman, he wished to point out, was exceedingly illogical in some of the remarks he had made, and he thought he must have been guilty of an uncon- scions joke levelled at the Members of the Government on the Treasury Benches. But when the hon. Gentleman said that it was dangerous to trust large matters to small portions of the people, and then said he was in favour of placing the control of the police under that fragment of the people, which consisted of the Home Office and himself, it seemed to him that his arguments became very illogical indeed. He believed the hon. Member was in favour of retaining the control of the police in the hands of the magistrates, and there again he would point out that when he spoke of trusting the whole people, and nothing but the people, he either did not understand what the people meant, or he was so illogical that he did not know whither his remarks were carrying him; because the magistrates belonged to one class, and certainly did not constitute the people as a whole. He thought it would be agreed that the landocracy constituted a very small portion of the people; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman was sincere in his wish to retain the police under the control of the magistrates, he could not be sincere in his wish to see any of these powers left in the hands of the people. The hon. Gentleman had explained that the people of London were the most intelligent in the country. He did not intend to dispute a proposition of that kind; but when the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the people of London had no control over their police, and used that argument as a reason why the Home Office should control the police in all other parts of the country, he (Mr. Conybeare) must point out again that the hon. Member was also illogical here, because he had expressed the opinion that, in large matters, not a small portion of the people, but the whole, should be trusted. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would be very successful if he carried his Amendment to a Division; and, after the expression of opinion on the Treasury Bench, he thought he would be wise in withdrawing it.

said, he was one of those who desired to see progress made in this measure; and, therefore, because he deprecated unnecessary Divisions, he would express his hope that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he wished to point out that the argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire was that it would increase economy and efficiency. It was obvious that by having one control there must be a saving of expenditure in respect of correspondence, clerks, and other matters. If they followed the example in the case of the prisons they would have one central authority, one control, and one set of regulations for one force, and this would certainly produce greater efficiency all round.

said, the Amendment standing in his name would have the effect of preserving the present useful arrangements existing between some of the boroughs and counties which had worked very satisfactorily, and which he thought it was undesirable to disturb.

said, he was in accord with what he believed to be the object of this Amendment; but he would point out that if the Government were to accept it as it stood, it would practically prejudge certain questions with reference to the boroughs and counties. He would undertake that, as far as boroughs of over 10,000 in population wore concerned, they accepted the spirit of the hon. Member's proposal. But he thought it better that what had to be said on the question should be deferred until they came to the clause dealing with the question.

asked if there would be an opportunity of discussing the question of police with regard to boroughs under 10,000; because, if he allowed the present opportunity to pass, those who wished to raise that question might be ruled out of Order hereafter.

said, there would be nothing whatever to prejudice the discussion by accepting his proposal to defer the question.

said, there was in his borough a very strong feeling that the municipal authorities should have the control of their own police, although the borough did not contain 10,000 inhabitants. He did not wish to delay the progress of the Bill, and as he understood that he should not be out of Order in raising the subject hereafter he was willing to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he was exceedingly desirous of falling in with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to facilitate the passage of the Bill; and, on the understanding that boroughs of under 10,000 inhabitants should not be prejudiced by the postponement, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would point out that the control of the police by the Home Office extended from Chislehurst on one side of London to Uxbridge on the other. He would not go into the historic reasons why it should come to pass that the control of the Home Secretary extended to counties outside London; but he ventured to suggest that those counties were just as well able to control their police as those to whom it was proposed to give powers under this clause. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to include the principle he had in view in the Bill.

said, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would make a suggestion that it should be withdrawn and the discussion of the point deferred. They must deal with the London police district as a whole.

said, on the understanding that the question of London police control would be considered hereafter on its merits, he would not press his Amendment.

said, he believed that the Committee would always consider a case upon its merits.

said, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) with reference to the powers of Quarter Sessions, under Clause 7 of the County and Borough Police Act of 1856, he had prepared an Amendment which he wished to submit to the Committee whereby the power of imposing certain additional duties on the police, as vested by the section referred to in Quarter Sessions, should be exercisable by Quarter Sessions as well as by the joint committee and also by the County Councils.

said, the clause as it stood transferred to the local Councils powers which were vested at present in certain Bodies, such as the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade. The object of his Amendment was, instead of transferring these powers by the Bill, to enable them hereafter to be transferred by Order in Council. His reason for moving the Amendment was that would be unwise to load the new authorities with all these onerous duties at starting. [Laughter.] He saw no reason for laughter. He confessed that until he had some experience of the working of the County Councils, and until he knew how they were composed, he did not think it would be expedient to vest in them a large number of powers. His view was that the County Councils should be made perfectly impartial and homogeneous, and in future, when they were able to judge how their business had been conducted, they might transfer to them any further powers which they considered could be rightly transferred. The transfer of these powers he proposed, as he had said, to be made in future by Order in Council; beyond that he could not at present go. He might point out that some of the powers to be transferred were quite unnecessary. Hon. Members would find by the Schedule that, among others, it was proposed to transfer the power now vested in the Board of Trade of making piers and harbours, and if they adopted the clause as it stood they would be conferring on the County Council of Rutland, for instance, the most unnecessary power of carrying out those works. He thought the Committee would agree with him that this Amendment was well deserving of consideration, and, as far as he was concerned, he greatly preferred his proposal to the clause in its present form.

said, he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Although, at first sight, undoubtedly, it had the appearance of emasculating the Bill, he would point out, with reference to the constitution of County Councils, the Bill had already been eviscerated by the exclusion of some of the smaller boroughs from the County Councils. That exclusion might be a good thing, but the constitution of the County Councils had thus become very different from what it was originally, inasmuch as they would be composed entirely of rural members or members from very small boroughs. He was not prepared to say there were not some powers of Government Departments that could not be very well given to the County Councils, but he thought, rather than run any risk, they should say that these large functions should not now be specified. He thought that before they were transferred it was desirable to see how the Councils discharged the less important duties. As a matter of practical experience, and apart from Party politics, he thought it was safer to keep powers with constituted authorities like the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, having a staff of officers for dealing with the various subjects, than it would be to give them to the County Councils. If hon. Members would look at some of the powers now exercised by the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade and the powers proposed to be transferred to the County Councils; if they would consider the amount of machinery necessary to carry out these powers, he thought they would see that it was impossible for the County Councils to deal with them. There were many counties which would have to decide on the question of piers and harbours. It was not stated that the country would be able to dispense with any of the Board of Trade officers in consequence of the proposed transfer, and he asserted that the Board of Trade, by their local inquiries, which were conducted at a small cost, had satisfied local demands. The proposal in the Bill was—for instance, where a borough desired gas or water works—instead of coming to a large constituted authority such as the Board of Trade they should go to the County Council, on which probably they thought they were inadequately represented, and where not only would the question be decided on its merits, but with considerable opposition on the part of rival boroughs. He knew that in Lancashire there were districts in which this would occur, and he could not conceive that any advantage would be derived from the action of County Councils in these matters. He pointed out also that there must be great expense in providing the County Councils with all the machinery necessary to deal with the powers proposed to be conferred upon them as they arose. He did not say that there were not some smaller matters which might be transferred to the County Councils. Nor did he wish to deprive them of the position they ought to occupy; but he would point out that it was proposed to transfer the powers of dealing with gas and water and the management of tramways throughout the Kingdom, which were matters requiring exhaustive inquiry, and then Provisional Orders followed by a Bill in Parliament. That being so, he asked hon. Members whether they thought the County Councils competent to deal with all these subjects? Not only was the change proposed a very sweeping one in itself; but, although the rates would be enormously increased, he did not think the districts would get value for the money spent. On the whole, he believed there would be great dissatisfaction if the clause wore carried in its present form. It was because he wished the system to be a success that he was anxious not to overburden the new Bodies, and he should therefore support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. He did not think hon. Members would deem it wise to give to the small boroughs the government powers which were enumerated. The case might be argued at greater length; but he thought he had given some reason why the Government should hesitate before they gave these powers to the County Council. He believed that in supporting the Amendment they would be doing mischief to the Councils and no good to the boroughs. His opinion was that they ought to shrink from giving powers to the new Bodies which could not be exercised for the good of the community.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Matthew White Ridley) that there were certain powers which the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade possessed that it would be desirable at once to give to the County Council, small powers which did not require great skill to exercise. But there were some powers of such great magnitude—for instance, there was the one to which he drew the attention of the House some time ago, that concerning the public health of the country, and which at the present moment was carried into successful operation by the skilled staff of the Local Government Board—which ought not to be transferred to the new authorities till they were organized and ready to use them with advantage to the nation. According to the Bill, they were at once to transfer the powers which had worked through the agency of a skilled staff of medical officers of the Local Government Board to detached and uncombined medical officers, some of whom had no training at all for the purposes contemplated, and many of whom were engaged in private practice, and had never had the opportunity or the inclination to study sanitary questions. He thought, therefore, that unless the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board assured them that he intended afterwards to put down Amendments—in regard to which he had given no Notice at the present time—giving such power to the County Councils as would enable them to get properly qualified medical men to look after the health of the community, the Bill would produce great deterioration instead of improvement in the public health. Until he knew that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make such Amendments, he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

said, he desired to corroborate what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) with reference to medical officers. He had occasion, in former years, to take an interest in the provisions introduced into the present Statute respecting medical officers, and he was quite certain that if the public health of the future under this Bill or any other Bill was to be conducted and attended to in a satisfactory manner, great pains must be taken to keep up the dignity and to maintain the status of medical officers. He did not desire to anticipate any discussion which might arise when they came to the part of the Bill dealing more specifically with public health; but as the point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman he could not remain entirely silent. He did not think they need have any apprehension as to some, at least, of the powers which it was proposed to transfer. The powers of the Home Office, which it was proposed to transfer to the County Councils, were confined to two subjects not entirely germane. In fact, they were connected together by a somewhat remarkable alliance in the Schedule—they were burials and fairs. In reference to the powers of the Local Government Board which it was proposed to transfer, he hoped that some of them would be removed in the subsequent discussion on the Bill. He thought it would be a misfortune to start this Bill without the transference of some powers. If the now authorities to be set up under the Bill were to be manned by men of position and character in the counties, the Committee must give them real and substantial work to do, and he doubted very much whether they could find any means of giving work to that class so effectual as by entrusting the County Council with some portion of the powers now administered by Government offices. He did not know that the removal of certain boroughs had so much weakened the County Councils as some hon. Members seemed to think. It was a grave misfortune in our social life that those who had interest in boroughs very often—in fact, almost invariably—lived outside of those boroughs. He believed that men of standing and of influence in the different boroughs would be found to reside outside of those boroughs, and to have large interest in the county. They would become efficient members of the new County Council. He, therefore, did not attach the importance some hon. Members did to the deteriorating effect upon the County Councils produced by the creation of the county boroughs; but he confessed that he was somewhat surprised to hear the criticism which had been offered by hon. Members who appeared more peculiarly to represent rural districts. He thought he had heard many hon. Gentlemen, whose interests were more rural than his own could claim to be, express great fear that the County Councils would be overborne and governed by the towns. That fear had been removed by the Amendment introduced in the Bill for the creation of a larger number of county boroughs, and he thought that on that ground, at least, they might feel more confident in entrusting powers to the County Councils.

said, he desired to say a word or two from the point of view of the public health. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) proposed to transfer from his own Department to the County Councils a large number of powers which were always intended to be used in the promotion of the public health of the country. Among those powers to be transferred were the powers under certain sections named in the Public Health Act of 1875, and he desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the powers he was about to transfer from his Department to the County Councils. He thought that it was possible to transfer some powers to the County Councils; but it was desirable the right hon. Gentleman should retain in his Department power to control the County Council, or any other Body to whom powers were entrusted, to carry out the provisions of the law which were necessary for the improvement of the public health. One hon. Gentleman had remarked that it was proposed to transfer to the County Councils all power under the 299th section of the Act of 1875. That section was the one which compelled the, authorities to perform their duties with regard to the public health, the power being vested in the Local Government Board under that section. Let him point out, however, that if, under the Bill, the powers given by that section were transferred to the County Councils, no authority in the country could be compelled by the Local Government Board to do anything that was necessary for the public health. He hoped that the point would be carefully considered, and that though the County Councils would be invested with some of the powers named in the Schedule, the Government Department would also possess the powers now named in the Act of 1875. The Local Government Board ought to be able compel the Local Authority to provide a mortuary, for instance; and they ought to be able to compel them to scavenge their streets. Those were important powers, but if the Bill passed as it now stood, there would be no power whatever on the part of the Local Government Board to compel any Local Authority to perform these important functions. He also desired to insist upon the point that there ought to be some supervising authority to see that duties were properly performed in the interests of public health. He should certainly support the Amendment now under consideration.

said, he listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley) upon the subject, to which he (Mr. Craig Sellar) had given some attention. He understood from the hon. Baronet that his argument was that, while he did not object to the transference of minor powers to the County Councils, he did object to the transference of the greater powers it was proposed to transfer. He (Mr. Craig Sellar) entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman in this matter; the hon. Gentleman adduced some very cogent reasons for his argument, which he hoped the Committee would consider carefully; but, in addition to the argument which the hon. Gentleman had urged, he desired to urge one, a minor argument certainly, but still a practical one. It was this—that the whole question of these Provisional Orders, as well as the greater questions connected with Private Bill legislation, were now being carefully considered by an important Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. That Committee would report, he hoped, very shortly, and he thought that was a strong reason for at least postponing the consideration of this clause. He trusted that if the Committee would not consent to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), they would, at least, consent to postpone this clause until the Committee which he had mentioned had reported.

said, he did not think that anyone would accuse him of being desirous of weakening either the duties, the powers, or the responsibilities of the new Councils, and it was because he entirely agreed with the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) that he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford. Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). They had been arguing all the way through—certainly, they upon the Opposition Benches had been so arguing—that it was desirable, as far as possible, to assimilate the new Council to the old Municipal Council. Now, Municipal Town Councils had had experience of Local Government for upwards of half-a-century, but Parliament had never yet proposed to confer on them the discretion and authority of the Home Secretary, or of the Local Government Board, or of the Board of Trade, in respect to the matters specified in the Schedule. It was proposed to invest the new Body—he had great faith in the new Body, although it was certainly untried and inexperienced—with these great Ministerial powers, he might almost say Parliamentary powers. He tried to follow his right hon. Friend in reference to the position of what were to be called county boroughs under the Bill. He believed the right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should still be subject to the Local Government Board, and to the Board of Trade, and to the Home Secretary, in all these matters. He quite agreed in that view, at all events for the present; but he thought that to invest the County Councils and not the municipal boroughs with these various discretionary powers, all of which would require a large and expensive and experienced staff in order to carry them out efficiently, was really proceeding on wrong lines. He thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division went as far as they ought to go. So far as Section 1 was concerned, he was quite willing that the Government of the day, having full knowledge of the facts of the case, should have power, by Order in Council, to transfer certain powers to the County Councils. If they did not accept the Amendment, they would be in the position that, when they came to the Schedule, they would have to discuss item by item all the things that ought to be transferred. The discussion would occupy a great deal of time, and he thought that, in the end, the County Councils would not possess a great many powers they ought to possess, and that they would possess some which they could never exercise with advantage to themselves or to the community.

said, he did not see any great objection to accepting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin). There would certainly, in accepting the Amendment, be the advantage alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler)—the Committee would be spared a long and very technical and intricate discussion with reference to the provisions in the Schedule of the Bill. It was certainly true also that the proposal placed on the responsible Government of the day the duty of considering, item by item, whether or not some of the powers now possessed by the various Government Departments might not safely be transferred to the County Councils. He would like, while saying that much, to say a word or two as to what he thought was a misconception which existed in the minds of some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. His hon. Friend (Sir Matthew White Ridley) seemed to think that, under the provisions of the Bill, the power would be transferred to the County Councils and the Councils of those boroughs which appeared in the Schedule to execute certain works such as harbours, and he thought his right hon. Friend said various other works. Let him point out that, so far as a county was concerned, and so far as all the boroughs specified in the Schedule were concerned, no power whatever with reference to any proposal for erecting works within their own area and which they would promote would be transferred to them by the Bill. Both with reference to counties and also with reference to boroughs in the 4th Schedule all Provisional Orders which were required for the purpose of executing work which they, as a Council, promoted, would have to be obtained from the Government Department as they were now obtained. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that whatever powers it might be proposed to confer on County Councils with reference to schemes proposed by Companies within their area, or by District Councils within their area, or by any other Body—it was perfectly clear that schemes of that kind were on a totally different footing to schemes of which the County Councils themselves were the promoters. While it might be perfectly right and proper to give these powers with reference to schemes promoted by authorities within the area of a County Council, it would not be right or proper that the County Councils should have the power of issuing Provisional Orders for schemes of which they themselves were the promoters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) alluded to a question affecting the health of the country. He (Mr. Ritchie) need hardly say he should be the last man in the House to propose anything which he thought would be disadvantageous to the general health of the community, and no one recognized more than he did the immense services which had been performed by the medical officers of the Local Government Board. Allusion had been made by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to the fact that representations had been made to the Local Government Board from boroughs to the effect that they would very much prefer to remain under the control of the Local Government Board than to have power exercised over them in this respect by a County Council. He was perfectly aware of that feeling. He was, he confessed, not aware it existed to such an extent that he was convinced now it did, for previously to the introduction of that Bill he had read of objections which had been again and again raised as to what was sometimes called the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the Government Department. There could be no question that, at any rate at some period or other, this feeling did exist to a very considerable extent; but he had become convinced now that that feeling had been replaced almost by feelings of regard and even of affection on the part of boroughs for the Board over which he had the honour to preside. Of course, the Committee knew perfectly well what the object of the Government was in making this proposal. Their object was that a system of decentralization which had been so often called for should be established. They thought that, at any rate so far as many of the powers they proposed to transfer were concerned, they might be fairly handed over to a large representative Body, such as they hoped the County Councils would be, who would probably be better judges than a Central Department of the wishes and wants and requirements of the localities under their jurisdiction. He was now convinced that the boroughs at any rate, and also many other Bodies in the counties, had such a complete confidence in the way in which the Local Government Board administered the powers which were conferred upon it, that they preferred that the Board should have the administration and control, rather than that it should be handed over to the County Councils— they would rather bear the ills they had than fly to those they knew not of. He was glad this was so, because he thought it was a very great indication that in recent years, at any rate, the powers which had been wielded by Government Departments had been exercised wisely and to the public advantage. That indication was fairly given through the representations which had been made on the part of boroughs, and it had to some extent reconciled him to a proposal which he could not help saying was in some measure a weakening of the Bill the Government had introduced. But he did not understand that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) was proposed in that sense—it was rather that what was to be done should be done tentatively, and that full consideration should be given by the Government of the day to every one of the proposed transferences before it was made. It was in this spirit they accepted the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. The acceptance of the Amendment would certainly have the great advantage which had been pointed out, that the Committee would be spared a long and intricate and technical discussion with reference to the different powers specified in the Schedule. He therefore proposed, on the part of the Government, to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.

said, he wished to understand how far this Amendment would go. Did the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) understand that the Amendment would apply to the County of London and its Council? The County of London stood in an entirely different position to other counties in the country, and he was bound to say that, so far as London was concerned, this Amendment would be most mischievous in its operation. He had regard particularly to the powers of the Home Office, and he presumed that if this Amendment were carried, those powers would be retained by the Home Secretary. That was not the desire of the ratepayers and citizens of the Metropolis. These proceedings seemed to him to show the absurdity of trying to treat London as if it were on all-fours with the other counties which were dealt with in the Bill. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would con- sider this point, and make a statement in reference to it when they came to the London clauses.

said, that, so far as he understood the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, it merely provided that the transference of these powers should take place by means of an Order in Council. It was quite evident that if London could not be considered separately, as he thought it could, power would remain to the Government of the day to make transferences which hon. Gentlemen thought it would be advisable to make. With reference to London, the Government had always had in their minds that when they came to the clauses dealing with the Metropolis separate and full consideration should be given to the peculiarities of the position occupied by London.

said, that the fact that the powers could be transferred by Order in Council was no guarantee to hon. Members. They found the Home Office extremely unwilling to surrender its prerogatives; and what they wanted to get was an absolute assurance on the point. When they came to the London clauses they would certainly press the right hon. Gentleman in respect to this matter.

said, that it appeared to him that this was a clause requiring very careful consideration and treatment, and he was rather sorry the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion to throw overboard entirely the 1st sub-section, and practically to retain only the 2nd.

No.

said, he wanted to be quite sure he did not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin). What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was to transfer no powers from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or from the Board of Trade, or from the Local Government Board, by the operation of this section, but to take power to the Government of the time being to transfer no powers from these and other Departments to the County Councils on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Did he rightly understand the matter? [Mr. RITCHIE assented.] Then, practically speaking, he was right in saying the right hon Gentleman dispensed with the first part of the section, which transferred powers by virtue of the section itself, and he preferred to rely on the 2nd sub-section, which dealt with the transference of power by Order in Council. He (Mr. Stansfeld) regretted the action of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had had reason to modify the proposed provision in the Bill for the transference of powers. He was aware that a deputation of boroughs waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and he was aware of the impression which that deputation produced upon the right hon. Gentleman's mind; and, therefore, he expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have himself proposed to reconsider this Schedule, and to have brought forward an amended Schedule at some future time, containing powers which, on more mature consideration, he thought it advisable to transfer. He understood, on the contrary, that the right hon. Gentleman elected to give up that opportunity, and preferred to leave the transference of powers entirely to future action. Then they came to the question of method. He (Mr. Stansfeld) had an Amendment to the 2nd sub-section, and perhaps he might be allowed to state his objection to that sub-section. He could quite understand a proposal that by agreement between the Government of the day and the Department concerned the transference of powers should be done by Provisional Orders involving the necessity of a confirming Bill, so that the matter might be certain of arresting the attention of Parliament; but that was not the proposal of this clause. The proposal of the clause was that a scheme when originated should lie on the Table for 30 days, and that, if it was not objected to, it should practically become law—that the Order in Council should issue as a matter of course forthwith, and that there should be no appeal to Parliament. It must be perfectly well known to Members of the Committee that, in the first place, such a scheme might lie on the Table and arrest no attention; and that, secondly, the scheme might arrest attention, but that hon. Members might be unable to get any opportunity of discussing it. This difficulty was much larger under the new Rules than under the old, and he regretted to say that there was no guarantee, under the 2nd sub-section as it stood, that the Government of the day might not on their own motion put schemes on the Table for the transference of powers from any Secretary of State, or from the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board, or the Education Department, or from any other authority having powers within a county, and there was no guarantee that the powers might not be transferred without Parliament having an opportunity of discussing them. By adopting this Amendment the House would wash its hands of the whole business; it would relinquish all authority and power, for it would delegate its authority practically to the Government of the time being, and he was bound to say that that was a delegation and abandonment of responsibility and power which the House ought not to contemplate.

said, he did not want to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but, of course, these were matters, and there were many other matters in connection with a great Bill like this, in regard to which there might be large and perfectly legitimate differences of opinion. The Government had made proposals which they thought were the best under the circumstances. When matters of this kind came to be discussed in a business-like way, and when a desire was shown on the part of all persons in the House to make the Bill as workable and as good a Bill as possible, he should be sorry, on the part of the Government, to attempt to set up a reputation for infallibility as to the proposals they made. The Government were perfectly willing to consider all suggestions, especially when they were made by so experienced a Member of the House as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld). Although they had provided that certain transfers might be made by means which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to—namely, the laying of the schemes on the Table of the House for a certain number of days, he was perfectly willing to fall in with the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman had made, and provide that the transference of powers should be made by a Provisional Order. He did not see the slightest objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was anxious to say so frankly, and at once.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not consider he was wasting the time of the Committee if he made clear the altered position of affairs. He (Mr. Woodall) was not quite clear what was to be the position under the altered circumstances of the boroughs in the Schedule and of the boroughs which were not included in the Schedule. Would such powers as were proposed to be given by Order in Council to the new County Authorities be also conceded to boroughs with a population of 50,000?

said, he had endeavoured to express broadly what they conceived to be the position of things with reference to the counties, and also with reference to the boroughs which were to be treated as counties. It was quite clear that schemes promoted by Governing Bodies of boroughs and counties should not be brought into effect by means of Provisional Orders issued by the Governing Bodies themselves. It was quite clear that if a borough in the Schedule desired to promote a scheme within its own area, it would not be right or proper it should have the power to issue the Provisional Order, the borough being, as it would be, an interested party.

said, he thought it was perfectly clear that if a County Authority or a borough of 50,000 inhabitants promoted any particular measure, it must come, as at present, to Whitehall. He hoped it would not be irregular in him to refer to the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and in which he asked that whatever might be the powers of the new County Authorities, the municipal boroughs might be left, as at present, the right of appeal to the Central Authority. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had very truly said that there was a time when the relations between boroughs and the Central Authority involved a certain amount of friction. Happily, the experience of years which had brought the best minds of the Provinces into harmonious relations with the very competent central office had insured a continuous and wise policy, which had been found to work very satisfactorily, and that, at any rate, they hoped would not be disturbed by any changes the right hon. Gentleman brought about, especially in regard to Provisional Orders. Suppose a borough of a less population than 50,000 was left to appeal to the new County Authorities. What possible assurance could it have, after a decision had been arrived at, that the Bill would obtain Parliamentary assent? There was no assurance at all that the policy of the County Authority in Staffordshire would be at all akin to that which would find favour in Dorset-shire, and, therefore, they could hardly expect a Government Authority to make itself responsible for the assent to these Provisional Orders. He and his hon. Friends felt strongly there was a probability of great inconvenience and great conflict arising, and, therefore, they hoped the existing system would be continued. Whatever concessions the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make to the County Authorities in deference to the views so forcibly expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackpool (Sir Matthew White Ridley) and others who had spoken, he trusted that those for whom he pleaded would be exempted from the operation of the concession.

said, that the position of some boroughs was very peculiar. The population of Great Grimsby, which he had the honour to represent, was 53,000. It ran over the borders of the borough into various hamlets all round, the population within the borough itself being 35,000. It appeared to him that under this Bill, even with the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), any transference of authority from the Local Government Board would enable the County Council to administer the various matters delegated to them in connection with Great Grimsby, whilst they would really know nothing about them. He, therefore, hoped that with regard to Great Grimsby, or any other borough in the same position, the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it could not be left entirely under the Local Government Board, in the same manner as the boroughs in the 4th Schedule.

said, he did not quite understand the position at which they had arrived. It seemed to him that instead of the Government having made a simple concession they had revolutionized the position. The proceeding of the Government had taken him quite by surprise. He and his hon. Friends were expecting that the powers specified in the 1st Schedule would positively belong to the County Councils, but in a moment the Government retreated from its position. The Government now reserved to themselves the authority to transfer these powers, and no guarantee whatever was given that any one of the powers would eventually be given to the County Councils. He heartily supported the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen around him, that they should have some opportunity of considering this question. He did not desire to move to report Progress; he would not do anything unfriendly to the Government, but he thought they ought to have time to consider the question. The Government were really emasculating the Bill; they were now taking away all its strength, saying that the House must trust the Government of the day and its wisdom and its propositions. That might be wise in itself, but the change made was so enormous that hon. Members had a right to ask for time to consider the matter.