COUNTY COUNCILS.

HC Deb 18 June 1888 vol 327 cc463-555

Powers of County Council.

Clause 3 (Transfer to county council of administrative business of quarter sessions).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to leave out from the word "subject" to the end of paragraph (iv.)—(Mr.Conybeare.)

Question, "That the words 'subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions and the justices' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

, in moving an Amendment, in line 19, after "justices," insert— To the right of the quarter sessions, and of any committee appointed by the quarter sessions, to use and occupy the shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and judges' lodgings as heretofore, said, he wished to explain that his object was to make it clear on the face of the Bill that any committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions should have the same right to use the Shire Halls, Assize Courts, and Judges' lodgings, as existed at the present time. Hon. Members were aware that committees appointed by the Quarter Sessions very often sat when the Court of Quarter Sessions was not sitting, and they were allowed the use of the Judges' lodgings whenever they required the accommodation. He asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to accept the Amendment, for the purpose of making it clear that that right was not interfered with.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 19, after the word "justices," to insert the words "to the right of the quarter sessions, and of any committee appointed by the quarter sessions, to use and occupy the shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and judges' lodgings as heretofore."—(Mr. Dugdale.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he must ask his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment, because he thought it would be found, on looking at Sub-section (iv.), that everything desired by the Amendment was already secured. The sub-section transferred to the Council of each county— Shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, court houses, justices' rooms, police stations, and county buildings, works, and property, subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions and the justices to the provisions of this Act respecting the joint committee of quarter sessions and the county councils. In the event of any dispute arising upon this particular question, reference was to be made to the Home Secretary.

DUGDALE

said, he was satisfied with the explanation of his right hon. Friend, and would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DUGDALE

, in moving, in page 3, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (vi.) which transferred to the County Council— The hearing of appeals relating to the licensing of gang-masters and to the granting of certificates to pawnbrokers, said, that the hearing of appeals was a judicial matter, and ought not to be dealt with by the County Council.

Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph (vi.)—(Mr. Dugdale.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was, upon the whole, inclined to agree with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend that the hearing of appeals was rather more in the nature of judicial than of administrative work, and that the powers at present exercised by the magistrates was that of hearing the evidence on oath. Under those circumstances, believing his hon. and learned Friend's contention to be right, and that it was really a judicial matter, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not think it at all satisfactory that this sub-section of the clause should be left out in this summary manner, nor did he think that the fact that the hearing of appeals might in some degree partake of a judicial character constituted any sufficient reason for relieving the County Council of this right. He was prepared to support any hon. Member on that side of the House in resisting the Amendment.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, that appeals arose, to a large extent, out of questions of fact, and he did not think that they should lessen the power of a County Council. He, therefore, regretted very much that the Government had shown a disposition to give way on a matter of that kind.

MR. RITCHIE

said, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth) was correct in stating that there were many questions of fact connected with the granting of licences; but he would also be aware that one of the reasons of with holding a licence was the personal character of the individual who applied for it, and that question could not be inquired into without the administration of an oath. The County Council had no authority to administer an oath, and, in his opinion, that rendered these appeals a judicial rather than an administrative matter.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, that the Municipal Councils were at present entrusted with some licensing powers.

MR. DUGDALE

said, that appeals against the refusal to grant licences had always been held to be a judicial matter, and were provided for both by the Pawnbrokers and Agricultural Acts. The ordinary procedure was taken in the Court of Quarter Sessions, recognizances were entered into by the persons appealing to be paid the cost of the appeal, and it was impossible to say that appeals of this character could be regarded as administrative business.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he thought that no sufficient reason had been assigned by the President of the Local Government Board for his own change of opinion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 246: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 158.)

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

, in moving, in page 3, line 28, leave out the word "pauper" in Sub-section (vii.), said, the sub-section transferred to the County Councils— The provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of, and other dealing with asylums for pauper lunatics. He did not see that the Amendment would interfere in any respect with the meaning of the sub-section. That was not his object; but that was the first place in the Bill in which the word "pauper" occurred, and he thought it was proper to make a proposal to change the word "pauper" into some other word. The suggestion he would make was that they should omit the word "pauper" wherever it appeared in the Bill, and should insert some such words as "industrial pensioner." [Laughter.] He would state his reasons briefly for making the proposal. The term "pauper," which, no doubt, was a very correct one as introduced by its user, had become associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with parish relief in a manner that made its employment a very offensive term. They all knew that it was used in a manner to reflect discredit and, in many cases, shame upon the person who was under the necessity of asking for parish relief. His contention was, that a man who had pursued an honest and laborous life, and had worked for a wage, and found it impossible to make provision for old age, ought to be maintained by the country which he had enriched by his labour, without being, at the same time, associated with a most objectionable epithet. That was the object he had in view, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would withdraw the laugh of derision with which they had greeted his original mention of the term "industrial pen- sioner." He wished to mention a particular case which was brought home to his mind, and which occurred in a great agricultural district. Passing along the road one day, he came across a poor blind man seated on the road side. Entering into conversation with him, he learned that for 40 years the man had worked on a farm doing all the important duties attached to a farm labourer for a very low wage—indeed, so low that it rendered it impossible for the man to make provision against sickness, to say nothing of old age, or of injury such as he had met with. In the course of his labours he was the victim of an accident which disabled him for life, and this man, after 40 years' daily labour on the farm on which he had been employed as man and boy, was turned adrift, without one penny of compensation, or the slightest consideration, by the person by whom he had been employed, and sentenced to spend the remainder of his life, not only under the terrible affliction of the loss of eyesight, which no one could help, but with the additional pain and humiliation of having to live on 2s. a-week and a stone of flour, doled out to him with a grudging hand by the parish authorities, his wife having to walk miles in order to bring that allowance home to his little cottage. What he asked was that the offensive term "pauper" should not be applied to a case like that. There was no more honourable man in Great Britain, and none more worthy of respect and sympathy, than this aged farm labourer, and yet there he was, with his wife, living a hard and lonely life, stigmatized by the objectionable phrase of a "pauper," when he was well entitled to all that could be provided for him in a country which he had laboured to enrich. He mentioned that special case, not because it was singular in its incidents, but because it illustrated hundreds and thousands of other cases that had occurred, and would occur again. He maintained that all persons who laboured for a wage so low that it was quite impossible for them to make provision for their after-life should be maintained by the country without the slightest stigma attaching to them by the use of the offensive term "pauper" as it was commonly applied. He was sure that this was a matter which would receive the sympathy of every hon. Member of that House. Perhaps there might be some difficulty in changing the term "pauper" into that of "industrial pensioner." He was not prepared to deny the difficulty; on the contrary, he believed that it would be very great indeed; but as this was the first case in which the term occurred in this Bill, he thought that unless he made known his desire in this particular instance, if he attempted to move a new term later on, he might be ruled out of Order, because the use of the term would then have become part and parcel of the Bill. He saw one of the hon. Members for the City of Norwich present, and he might say that the case to which he had referred came under his notice within a very short distance of the hon. Gentleman's home, so that probably the hon. Member was acquainted with it as well as he was. He was therefore satisfied that the hon. Member, with his high character of great kindliness, would come to his assistance in the effort he was making to show some consideration for the deserving poor of the country. He was of opinion that under no circumstances and in no condition should labouring men have applied to them this offensive term in their old age, and he trusted that hon. Members on both sides of the House would come to his assistance and help him in substituting some other phrase or some other term for the offensive one which he proposed to omit. He had endeavoured to put in the fewest words possible his objection to this term, and all he desired was that the President of the Local Government Board should see his way to the insertion of some other term which would meet the case, and then, in the course of time, opportunities might be afforded for eliminating the word from other measures. That, however, could be provided for in the present clause, by stating that the term he suggested should be used in all other cases in which the term "pauper" occurred.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had not understood the purport of the Amendment when the hon. Member rose to move it, but it was clearly a proposal outside the scope of the Bill. It would clearly not be in Order to strike out the word in this sub-section, because the effect would be to transfer to the County Councils the management and visitation of all lunatic asylums.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he wished to understand whether the Chairman ruled that he could not proceed further with the Amendment, but that any alteration must be effected by new legislation? If that were so, he begged to give Notice that, as soon as possible, he would bring in a Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the same remark would apply to the next Amendment which appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), and which was as follows:— The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any markets, the tolls, rents, or profits from which at present belong to private persons, and the making of bye-laws for the regulation and control of all markets thus purchased or acquired: Provided that, in the case of markets belonging to any borough or municipality, the corporation or town council of such borough or municipality shall have the power of making such bye-laws.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked, on the point of Order, whether it would be possible for him to place the Amendment down for a subsequent clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was quite in Order to put it down for a new clause, for, although he was not aware of the fact, it might be found to relate to some subsequent clause.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

, in moving, in line 31, after "industrial schools," to add "and the visitation of prisons," explained that the object of the Amendment was to transfer the duties connected with the visitation of prisons from the Visiting Committee of Quarter Sessions to the new County Councils. At present the Quarter Sessions were empowered to appoint a Committee from their own Body to visit the prisons, and the object of the Amendment was to take away that power from the Quarter Sessions and to give it to the County Councils. Since the Prisons' Act of 1877, the powers of the Visiting Committee had been a mere shadow of those which they formerly enjoyed, and practically the powers of the Committee were limited now to reporting to the Home Office and making recommendations. The value of a Visiting Committee was that it threw a little light upon the internal arrangement of the prisons, and acquainted the outer world with what went on. He had no desire to increase the powers at present enjoyed by the Visiting Committee, nor was it any part of his case that the magistrates did improperly discharge their functions in that respect. He asked for this transfer for the same reason which formed the basis of the Bill—namely, that more confidence was likely to be reposed in elected representatives than in a Visiting Committee appointed by the magistrates. Perhaps he might be permitted to say that there seemed to be at the present moment a growing distrust and suspicion in regard to our prison discipline. The idea prevailed that the prison discipline was cruel and oppressive; that in many cases it had broken down the constitution of persons sent to prison for short terms of imprisonment for comparatively venial crimes; and that it had more or less indirectly produced fatal results. It was their desire that a popularly elected Body should have the power of inquiring into the management of their prisons, and reforming any abuses which might be proved to exist. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, after the word "schools," to add the words "and the visitation of prisons."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member were deserving of consideration; but he would point out that they had no application to the present clause. The administration of prisons was entirely in the hands of the Prison Commission, governed by rules framed by successive Secretaries of State. It was not left either to Prison Committees or to the Governors of prisons. The question of prison discipline was one of great difficulty and anxiety. Possibly it might be a serious question whether the present system was not too severe, having regard to the health of the prisoners as well as their reformation. Perhaps the question was one that was eminently worthy of consideration, and ought to be reviewed from time to time; but he would point out that, at present, they could absolutely do nothing. They had no control over the prison rules, or any functions in connection with the administration of prisons generally. The functions of the Prison Committee were mainly judicial. The clause merely affected the transfer of powers, and did not affect the law. If the hon. Member would look at Sections 12 and 14 of the Prisons Act of 1877 he would find that Parliament intended to limit the punishing power of the Governor over a refractory and insubordinate prisoner, and to leave the ultimate decision in such a case to the Visiting Justices. That was an important question, and would be much more properly left in the hands of the Justices, who were accustomed to deal with matters of punishment, rather than to leave it to the County Councils, who could not be so well fitted as a body of Justices chosen for the purpose. Even in a borough, as the hon. Member was aware, it was not the Town Council who appointed the Visiting Committee for the prisons, but the borough Justices.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, he was quite aware that the Justices had no control over the discipline; but he understood that it was part of their duty and practice to make reports and recommendations to the Home Office; and it seemed to him that the making of such reports and recommendations would be more properly in the hands of the representatives of the people than in those of mere nominees of the magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out a difficulty in regard to the duty imposed upon the Judges in their being empowered to inflict corporal punishment on refractory and insubordinate prisoners. He would suggest therefore, by way of compromise, what he thought would meet the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—namely, that they should follow the analogy contained in this very Bill in regard to pauper lunatic asylums in the 7th clause, by which the management of such asylums was in the first place vested in the County Councils, but by the 7th clause power was reserved to appoint a Visiting Committee. He thought there ought to be some reciprocity. If the arrangement to which he had referred in regard to pauper lunatic asylums were reasonable and satisfactory, it seemed to him that while the control of the prisons was vested in the Home Office, it was only reasonable to give to the County Councils a concurrent right of visitation with the Justices.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was afraid that it was not possible to accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had pointed out very clearly that there were certain duties imposed upon the Justices with respect of the visitation of prisons, and that certain powers were placed in their hands which were of an important character. He understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that these powers should not be obligatory, but permissive. The Government did not think that that would be satisfactorily carrying out the provisions of the existing law. As his right hon. Friend had pointed out, this Bill did not propose to alter the existing law, and therefore it was desirable to adhere to the clause as it stood.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman properly understood the suggestion he had made. The idea was to give to the County Councils a concurrent right of visitation with the Justices.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that nobody could say that the existing law had not been properly and efficiently administered. He therefore could not accept the suggestion, and the Amendment was really beyond the scope of the clause.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, that revelations were constantly taking place, not only in regard to Irish prisons, but to English prisons also. A great deal of monstrous brutality had been shown to exist in our present system, and as a matter of policy, if upon no other ground, the citizens of this country represented by the County Councils should know something as to the condition of the prisons and the methods of treatment adopted in them. He was not prepared to discuss now whether the Penal Code ought to be amended, or whether a change should be introduced into the whole system on which the treatment of our prisoners was based. We had embodied in the law the system of visitation by Justices, because it was considered a wholesome corrective against any evils which might possibly have crept into the administration of our prison discipline. He was not asserting that the Justices of the Peace had failed in their duty, or that the County Councils should have a concurrent power of visitation on account of any dereliction of duty on the part of the Justices of the Peace; but he considered it desirable that the County Councils should have the power to appoint members of their Body to visit the prisons and see what took place in them. Presumably the burden of maintaining the prisons rested on the shoulders of the ratepayers, and through their popularly constituted representatives in the County Councils they ought to have some control over what went on, consistently with a fair view of humanity and justice. It did not seem to him to be any reason for refusing the Amendment, because it went beyond the particular proposal contained in the section. There were grounds of humanity on which this small concession to the public opinion of the country ought to be made. All he could say was that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not believe the statements which were made as to the inhuman manner in which the prisoners were treated, they would have cause to change their opinion before very long. He regarded the Amendment as a very reasonable one, and trusted that the Committee would accept it.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, the facts of the case did not bear out the statement which had just been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The Court of Quarter Sessions of which he was a member always gave the jury an opportunity of inspecting the prisons, and he had never heard of a single complaint.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had only to look at the newspapers in order to see the evidence on which he based his plan.

MR. HASTINGS (Worcestershire, E.)

said, the argument was that the County Councils ought to be able to send special representatives to visit the prisoners, because the burden of maintaining the prisons fell upon the ratepayers. Now, it did not fall upon the ratepayers at all; for since the Prisons' Act was passed the expense of maintaining the prisons was provided by a Vote in that House. Therefore the ratepayers of the county had no ground for interference. It would be just as reasonable to propose that the County Councils should have power to send representatives to inspect the convict prisons, which were similarly supported by the Imperial Exchequer. He might also point out, as had been clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, who moved the Amendment, was entirely mistaken as to the functions of the Visiting Committee. The hon. Member said the functions were not in any way judicial. Now, as a matter of fact, they were altogether judicial. He had been Chairman of the Visiting Committee of the county of Worcestershire ever since the Prison Act passed, and he was bound to say that all the duties that Committee performed inside the prisons were entirely judicial. All complaints were judicially investigated, and, if necessary, witnesses were heard on oath. With very slight exceptions, all the powers exercised in the prisons respecting punishment were administered by the Visiting Committee, who only gave their judgment after having heard evidence on oath. So far from the ratepayers having anything to do with the matter, they had been relieved altogether from the burden of maintaining prisons since the passing of the Prisons Act.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that if he had any doubt whether he should support the Amendment that doubt had been removed by the speech which had just been delivered. He had some little doubt at first whether these words ought to be inserted, but now he had none. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that nobody asked to have the judicial duties of the magistrates transferred to the County Councils. The whole of the clause was governed by the first three or four lines, which said— There shall be transferred to the council of each county, on and after the appointed day, the administrative business of the justices of the county in quarter sessions or any committee appointed by the quarter sessions assembled, that is to say, all business done by the quarter sessions, in respect of the several matters following—namely, and so on. All the judicial business was reserved to the Visiting Justices, and the administrative business was handed over to the County Councils. There was evidently a desire, however, to limit the transfer of administrative duties to the new County Councils as far as possible. It was the old story. They wanted to get rid of the County Councils by giving them nothing to do, and by making them subordinate to the Justices. He thought that the sooner they came to close quarters with that principle the better. The true principle of the Bill was that not on the ground of misconduct, or of incompetency, or of inefficiency, but on the ground of public policy, it was desirable to transfer to a popular Body, elected by the county, duties hitherto discharged by the magistrates. They must accept that position all through. Nobody objected to the Justices having power to inflict punishment on prisoners confined in the county prisons; but the duties of the Visiting Committee, which Lord Cross carefully considered when he transferred the jurisdiction from the Local Authorities to the Crown, ought to be placed in the hands of the County Councils. What were those duties? They were to visit the prisons frequently, to report on any matters that might require a report, to take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity, and to enter any observations they might consider desirable as to the condition of the prisons and abuses in the visitors' book kept by the gaoler. He was not going into the question raised by his hon. Friend below the Gangway, as this was not a proper time to discuss our prison administration. His own opinion was that it was unnecessarily severe, and he believed that when Parliament had time to consider it, it would be inclined to reform the present system of administration. Certainly on the other side of the water there were tendencies to great severity in their prison life. Hitherto, Amendments had been opposed because they might possibly introduce a dangerous principle when they came to be applied to Ireland; but he advocated this Amendment because it would be advantageous when it came to be applied to Ireland. He thought it was most desirable that people elected by a popular Body should be able to enter the Irish prisons and ascertain what went on there. Without desiring to cast any reflection upon the English magistrates, who certainly discharged their duty very differently from the magistrates of Ireland, he thought it was desirable that the principle of popular representation should be applied to the inspection of prisons, so that they might secure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any unnecessary severity being inflicted in carrying out the law. Therefore, if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should support him, although it might be necessary to introduce some other words into the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, lie should certainly feel bound to support the Amendment. He attached enormous importance to a visitation on the part of persons who might be taken to represent the public interest in the prisons. He had felt that very much himself when he was at the Home Office, and had done everything he could to strengthen the case of the Visiting Justices, as he believed they had invariably acknowledged; but there was no judicial function in these visitations of prisons any more than there was in the visitation of asylums. The magistrates had a great deal to do in committing persons to asylums as well as to prisons, and he could not see any reason why the visitation of prisons should not be left in the hands of a Committee of the County Council. It was highly desirable that the public should have the means of knowledge as to the administration of prison discipline, and that would be felt as a protection both to the Government and to the public. He had always thought it an enormous danger, when the prisons were originally transferred to the Government, that there might arise in the mind of the public a supposition of undue severity or injustice being exercised in the prison administration. He was sorry to see that there was a disposition on the part of the Committee to distrust the County Councils. All the attempts to eviscerate this clause and to diminish the power of the Council arose from a jealousy of the Council, and he was afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to take enormous pains to create a Body at a great expenditure which, after all, would have little or nothing to do. There seemed to be a disposition to take out one power after another. The licensing power had already been struck out. Sub-section 6 had just gone. He did not know why or wherefore they could object to entrust so small a power to the Body they were creating. It appeared to him that when the Bill left the House it would be little more than an old turnpike trust. If hon. Members would take the pains to look at the Bill and see what the Council would have to do when it was created, they would find that it would have to look after the main roads and the county bridges; that it would be a Visiting Committee, as far as the asylums were concerned; and that it would have a certain power with reference to wild birds and contagious diseases in animals. Those were the whole of the functions of this great measure of local government which they were creating for England. They omitted everything relating to licensing, and they objected to entrust the Councils with the power of visiting the prisons. What, then, did they leave for the County Councils to do? He would like every hon. Member to look into the Bill, and see what these Councils would have to do when they were created. The duty of interposing between the public and the Government in regard to the administration of prison discipline was one of the most proper functions which could be conferred upon the County Councils, and if it were only upon the ground that the Amendment would give the County Councils something to do he would support it. Hon. Members ought to take care that they did not bring this great Body into contempt.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the right hon. Gentleman had made what he might call a second reading speech. It showed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had very improperly read the Bill; that he had not read the Amendment at all; and that he had entirely forgotten the provisions of the Prisons Act, because he had added something to it which did not exist.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had been speaking of the last Amendment which the Government had struck out.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the right hon. Gentleman was certainly out of Order in discussing an Amendment which had been disposed of.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that what he had said was that the Government had eviscerated the Bill by striking out a portion of the powers they were prepared originally to grant.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that this was a proposition to take away from the Visiting Justices functions which they performed under the Prisons Act, and to transfer them to the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said that those functions were not judicial; but he must have forgotten the provisions of the Prisons Act. Those functions are peculiarly judicial, seeing that they relate to the punishment of prisoners. The Prisons Act of 1855 empowered the Justices to take evidence upon oath, and determine concerning any report made to them that a prisoner had been guilty of any particular offence against prison discipline. Rule 59 provided that no prisoner was to be put in irons, or to be put into mechanical restraint unless the particulars were at once entered, and no prisoner was to be confined for more than 24 hours in a separate cell unless the time during which he was to be confined separately was specified by the magistrates. Moreover, the Visiting Committee of Justices were empowered to take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity not within the power of their commission as Justices, and to perform such duties as they might be required to perform. The members of the County Council could not perform those functions, because they were not members of the Commission of the Peace. Under another provision of the Prisons Act of 1877, the Visiting Committee could not punish an offender except by an order of two Justices of the Peace, and after an inquiry upon oath. That was altogether a judicial function. There was no power whatever on the part of the members of County Councils to administer an oath. The power to administer an oath was given to the Justices simply because they held the Commission of the Peace. It might be that some powers of visiting the prisons could be usefully conferred on the County Council; but it must be entirely apart from the judicial functions which the Prisons Act empowered the Justices to perform.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that that was the main duty which the Visiting Committee would have to perform.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that he was aware that it was one duty, and that words to that effect were inserted in the Act of 1877 as a sop to the magistrates when the principal part of their control was taken away.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he should like to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he was disposed to consider favourably the transfer of any part of the visiting powers to the Council, which, after all, composed nine-tenths of the work. He would be satisfied if the corrective powers were retained in the hands of the magistrates, and the general visiting functions were transferred to the County Councils. He should be very well satisfied with an arrangement of that kind, and on that footing he would assent to the retention of the corrective power of punishment in the hands of the magistrates.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

said, he wished to make an observation from the point of view of a practical man. When the prisoners were walking round and round the prison yard, and visitors appeared at the door, the prisoners were ordered to halt, so that any man who had a complaint to prefer might come forward. He believed that a prisoner, if he had legitimate cause of complaint—which sometimes might arise, even in an English prison—would be much more likely to come forward and report the views to a member of a popularly elected Council than to a Justice of the Peace, who was appointed from a class which, rightly or wrongly, he had been taught to consider in direct opposition to his own. Therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House by pressing the Amendment to a Division.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, he wished to say one word in answer to the statement which had just been made. He had been a visiting magistrate for many years, and he had invariably carried out this rule—that whenever he entered the cell with a brother magistrate to listen to the complaints of a prisoner no official should be allowed to be present. He believed that that was the usual practice that prevailed, and though the management of the gaols had been taken away from the magistrates, and vested in the Government, the visiting magistrates never neglected their duty of visiting, and inquiring carefully into any complaints the prisoners had to make.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he did not wish to impugn the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet, but he thought that if inquiry were made into the matter it would be found that the course he had referred to was not invariably pursued.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,) Petersfield

said, he desired to express his concurrence with the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had made as to the great importance of transferring, wherever it could be done properly, the functions of the magistrates to the County Councils. He sincerely trusted that the Government, although unable to accept this particular Amendment, would consent to transfer to the County Councils the general visiting functions, while retaining the judicial functions in the hands of the Justices. He believed that such a provision would tend to increase the importance of the County Councils.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

said, he should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to an extremely important precedent on this point—namely, the precedent of the Visiting Committee appointed under the Scotch Prisons Act of 1877. By that Act, which was modelled upon the English Act, the Visiting Committee need not be Justices. The section provided that a Visiting Committee should be appointed for every prison under the Act, and that it should consist of a certain number of persons being Commissioners of Supply and Justices of the Peace. Now, what were the Commissioners of Supply? They were exactly the same order of persons, and entrusted with very much the same functions, as the County Councils now proposed to be constituted.

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

said, he maintained that it should be an important part of the new Body about to be created to administer the business of the county and visit the prisons, in order that they might, without the presence of the officials, ascertain what the treatment of the prisoners was. If it were necessary, he could point out various abuses of which he knew something personally. The administration of the present system was simply delegated to nominees of the Government. He was anxious that the duties should be transferred to persons who were responsible to the people, and on those grounds he hoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, he simply rose to say that he cordially accepted the suggestion which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give a distinct pledge that on a subsequent part of the Bill he would introduce words that would have the effect of transferring to the County Councils the visiting powers, properly so called, of the Justices, reserving to the Justices the judicial functions in regard to the infliction of punishment, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. But if a distinct pledge of that kind was not given he was afraid that it would be necessary to carry the Amendment to a Division.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he could not give any such pledge to the hon. Gentleman. The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was not exactly on all fours, because the power of a Visiting Committee in England wore not the same as those in Scotland. So far as he could say, no judicial powers were exercised by Visiting Committees in Scotland at all. If the Government were to retain the judicial powers in the hands of the Justices and to transfer the other powers to the County Councils, the effect would be to set up two Visiting Committees, which the Government did not think at all desirable. He was afraid, therefore, that he could not give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. The argument of the Government was that the powers conferred by Act of Parliament on the Justices were judicial, and they desired to retain in the hands of the Justices the judicial functions now exercised by them.

MR. STANSFELD

said, they had been discussing a question on the larger issue, whether all the administration as to lunatic asylums and prisons should not be subjected to the visitation and supervision, not only of the county magistrates, but of the members of the County Council. He entertained a strong opinion upon that subject; and either on the present, or some other occasion, he hoped that some proposal would be made in regard to it which would be pressed to a Division. His own opinion was that there was no necessity to wait for another opportunity, but that this was the right occasion to raise the discussion if it were considered desirable. It was admitted that some of the functions of the Visiting Justices were not judicial, and might be performed by persons who were not Justices of the Peace; for instance, the 4th section of the Prisons Act required a report to be sent in as to the condition of the prisons, and also as to any repairs that might be necessary. Surely it was not necessary that a Visiting Committee should have the powers of Justices of the Peace in order to present a report in cases of that kind. He maintained that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was perfectly right in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board gave it as a reason why they ought not to accept the Amendment that it was not desired that they should have two Bodies possessing administrative functions; but the Committee had already provided that that was to be the case in regard to the lunatic asylums.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was not desirable to lay down that principle as a general proposition.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to lay down as a general proposition that the institutions in a county should not be visited by more than one Committee, but he now appeared to confine himself to the case of prisons. He and his hon. Friends on that side of the House were not satisfied that prisoners in a county should be visited simply by the Justices; and they demanded that they should be visited also by the representatives of the people—that not only the Justices, but the delegates of the people at large should be admitted within the precincts of the prisons. This Bill, in reference to lunatic asylums, transferred certain administrative functions from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils; and in the 6th clause it reserved the right of the Quarter Sessions to appoint a Visit- ing Committee also. He saw no reason why the same principles which prevailed as to asylums should not obtain with regard to prisons; and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should have great satisfaction in voting with him.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant to tell the Committee that there was no administrative business in connection with the prisons which would concern the County Councils? Surely, the matter of repairs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax formed part of the administrative business. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to allow the Amendment to be passed, for this reason—that the present management of our prisons was very far from what it ought to be. He was convinced that many prisoners were at the present moment unwisely treated, and that they were teaching the people whom they put in prison to hate work. Most of those who are in prison went there because they did not like work, and the prison rules taught them to hate it.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he was afraid that they were engaged in the erection of machinery which, after they had created it, would have very little work to do. Nearly all the improvements in prison discipline had come not from the prison magistrates, but had come from persons outside, such as the Howard Society. He cordially supported the Amendment.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouthshire, W.)

said, no one could dispute that the Visiting Committee had double functions to discharge. What was desired was that the representatives of the people should perform those functions which were strictly called judicial, and that members of the Council elected by the people should be able to go and inspect the prisons, confer with the prisoners, and receive complaints and make a report and entries in the visiting book. That was all that was intended by the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and there was no desire that the judicial functions performed by the magistrates should be transferred by the County Councils.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 259: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 159.)

MR. BARING (London)

, in moving the following Amendment, in page 3, line 37, at end, to insert "except the clerk of the peace and every clerk to justices in petty sessions," said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been kind enough to inform him that the question to which this Amendment related was settled by Clauses 82 and 83. He (Mr. Baring) had read those clauses with considerable care, and, as far as he was able to understand them, though he might possibly be wrong in his interpretation of them, they referred merely to the payment of the fees, whereas the present clause related to the fixing of the fees. If he was wrong in this view, he should, of course, have nothing to do but withdraw the Amendment; but he desired to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say upon the subject.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, at end, to insert the words "except the clerk of the peace and every clerk to justices in petty sessions."—(Mr.Baring.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, that Clauses 82 and 83 appeared to go beyond his hon. Friend's proposal. The words of Clause 82 were— For the purpose of the enactments relating to such salary and fees, the standing joint committee of the county council and the quarter sessions shall be substituted for the quarter sessions and the local authority respectively. In reference to clerks of Petty Sessions, the 83rd clause provided that— In the enactments relating to such salaries and fees the said standing joint committee shall be substituted for the quarter sessions and the local authority respectively. He was advised that it was not necessary to insert his hon. Friend's Amendment, because its object was fully covered by these words. If, however, that turned out to be not the case, he would take care, on Report, to amend the clause.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, the fees paid to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of Petty Sessions were judicial fees, and the Quarter Session Court was, by Statute, authorized and obliged to draw up scales of the amounts to be paid. The amounts of such fees ought to be left to the determination of the Court of Quarter Sessions.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would be content to accept the assurance that if Clauses 82 and 83 did not carry out that which was the hon. Gentleman's intention and his own, he would take care to put the matter right on Report.

MR. BARING

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he wished to move the insertion of the words "chief constable" after the word "of," in line 39. He was very anxious to see good relations maintained between the people and those who had authority over them; and he, therefore, desired that the determination of the Chief Constable's salary should be placed in the hands of the County Councils.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether the question which the hon. Member is now raising was not settled by the Division taken on Friday upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage)?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment then moved embraced both the appointment of the Chief Constable and the control of the police. I think that, technically, this Amendment may be moved again; but I do not think the hon. Member is exercising a very wise discretion in proposing it.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he thought the discretion to which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman referred was not altogether in his own hands. He was very desirous that the salaries of all the officials should be left to the determination of the Council, because he thought that in all Departments of the Public Service taxation and representation should go together. He was not going to speak at length on the subject, and had only a few more words to say about it. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether he could not, by introducing a fresh provision some- where in the Bill, encourage County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. Bankers would undertake the work of treasurers without payment, and they would perform the duties appertaining to that office with efficiency, and in a very business-like manner. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he knew well, that a very large number of Local Authorities now employed bankers as their treasurers.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. BRUNNER

said, he had nothing more to say about the Amendment, and he commended it to the Committee as one that they would do wisely to adopt.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, after the word "of," to insert the words "Chief Constable."—(MR. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he only wished to say one word about the Amendment, as, after what the Chairman had said, he did not think it would be wise to continue the discussion. The Committee had undoubtedly considered the question in connection with the police already, and had taken a Division upon it. He thought that the argument in favour of rejecting this Amendment was much stronger now than it was before the Division was taken on Friday evening.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he wished to point out that the discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) respecting the police had not nearly concluded when the Division was taken on Friday evening. He would not venture upon forbidden ground; but he thought that everybody who was present during the last hour of the discussion on Friday would agree with him that it was through the excessive impatience of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the discussion was curtailed. Many of those who had wished to address the Committee on Friday felt that they were entitled to say something on the subject now. But, whether they did so or not, the mere fact that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby was rejected on Friday could not be held to exclude all discussion on the question of the police. An Amendment on the subject was to be moved on the 7th clause, and he hoped that it would not be ruled out of Order when reached. As to the present Amendment, he should like to emphasize what his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) had stated as to the importance of maintaining the principle that the elected representatives of the people on the Council Councils should have the control of the appointment and the fixing of the salary of the Chief Constable. It would not be denied that the office of Chief Constable was an exceedingly important one, and that that functionary had the chief control of the police, although the decision of certain questions respecting the regulation and efficiency of the police was assigned by the Bill to various authorities. The Joint Committee would have a great deal to say about the management and control of the police, but the Local Government Board or the Home Office, or some central authority, would also, to a large extent, look after the efficiency of the force. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House felt very strongly that the control of the police, as far as the appointment, pay, and removal of the Chief Constable were concerned, should be in the hands not of a Joint Committee of irresponsible men, but of the elected representatives of the people on the County Council. On this point, he might allude to the difficulties that had arisen lately within a stone's throw of that House in connection with the treatment of the public by the police of the Metropolis. From what he had soon of the temper of the people, he thought that more mischief had been done by the action of the Government and the police in connection with meetings in Trafalgar Square than had been created during the whole time that had elapsed since the Hyde Park riots a good many years ago. Wherever one went in the Metropolis to-day, one found in existence a feeling of exasperation against the police. It was a very great pity that it was so, but this kind of feeling would always be aroused whenever, by the timidity of a mischievous official like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), police were directed to trample upon the people. He had taken the trouble to go among the people with the object of ascertaining their feelings on the subject, and he could only say that there was such a feeling of exasperation as it was very dangerous ever to arouse among the populace against the constituted authorities. He would endeavour to illustrate the principle he was fighting for by referring to another case, drawn not from the Metropolis, but from the county with which he had the honour to be connected. He would not refer to the riots which occurred in 1885 in the St. Austell Division, as he preferred to leave the hon. Member for that Division (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) to deal with them, if he chose to do so. He would, however, allude to the difficulties which occurred in the capital of the Division he represented, the Town of Camborne, some years back. At that time there was exactly the same maltreatment of the people by the police as had been witnessed in the Metropolis within the last few months. In Camborne the police did not, perhaps, ride down the people and massacre them—

MR. W. BECKETT (Notts,) Bassetlaw

Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. I beg to ask whether these remarks are in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is, I believe, coming to the Question. I believe he is merely giving an illustration of his argument.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was sorry that the hon. Member opposite had not listened to him with sufficient attention to enable him to follow his argument. He had laid down the principle that the control of the police, as far as the appointment of the Chief Constable was concerned, should be in the hands of the elected members of the County Council, and he was giving, as his reason for advocating that principle, facts which many hon. Members might choose to deny, but which were within the knowledge of some of them at any rate. The first series of facts were those connected with Trafalgar Square, and the second series related to his own constituency, Surely a Member of that House had a right to speak about what had happened in his own constituency. On the occasion to which he was referring in Camborne, the police behaved with exceeding roughness, harshness, and brutality to the people. The consequence was that there were riots in Camborne, as there would always be in a place where the people were treated with injustice, and where a feeling of indignation and exasperation was aroused. For his own part, he wished to see maintained the respect which the people of this country always held for the constituted authorities. That respect was being slowly sapped and undermined by the action of the present Government. It was to a great extent undermined by the action of the police at Camborne on the occasion to which he was referring. The police used to go about the streets and deliberately hustle the poor men with the view of raising a charge against them of being drunk and of putting them into the lock-up. This occurred repeatedly, and the result was that riots took place. The consequence was that the Chief Constable of the county, who was not a brave man, took to his heels, and, he believed, had never shown his face in Camborne since. He would give the Committee one more illustration, and he thought it a very pertinent and important one, of what was likely to happen in Devon under this Bill. The measure proposed to turn into separate counties all boroughs in which the population amounted to or exceeded 50,000. The result would be that Devonport and Plymouth would each become counties in themselves, whilst Stonehouse would still form part of the County of Devon. Devonport and Stonehouse formed one borough for Parliamentary purposes, but were divided for local purposes. In Stonehouse the police were under the control of the irresponsible magistracy of the county, whilst in Devonport theywere under the management of the Municipal Authorities. The residents of Stonehouse and Devonport respectively said that there was all the difference in the world between the treatment and their treatment in the other.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has been allowed great latitude. He is not at all speaking to this special Amendment, which in itself is only technical.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he did not wish for a moment to transgress the Chairman's ruling, or to pursue the matter further. He might, perhaps, have some other opportunity of referring to the subject. He was only anxious to impress upon the Committee the importance of maintaining the prin- ciple that the police should be controlled by the representatives of the people. If the people controlled their Chief Constable, they could, at any rate, indirectly control their police. The Members of the Opposition were satisfied that they were doing their duty in taking their stand upon that principle. No doubt the Supporters of the Government would over-rule them if they went to a Division; but he thought that the people of the country would approve their action in having insisted upon giving to the people the control of the police.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.) Kirkcaldy

said, that, as he understood the Bill, the control of the police was to be vested jointly in the Justices and the County Councils, but that the Justices were to appoint and the Council was to pay the Chief Constable. This seemed to him to be a very inconvenient arrangement. In his opinion, if the County Council was to pay for the police officers, it was most reasonable that it should appoint them. The joint committee would have a very inefficient control over the police if the appointment of the Chief Constable rested solely with the Justices. He thought that the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest with the County Council alone, although he admitted that the Committee had already accepted what he regarded as the bad system of joint control.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he was rather disposed to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) that he should not insist upon carrying his Amendment to a Division. His reasons for saying so were these. Practically speaking, the Committee had decided not to transfer to the County Council the appointment of the Chief of the people by the police in one place Constable; but the Committee had not decided anything with regard to his salary. Whatever reasons there might be in the minds of hon. Members in regard to leaving to the County Council the appointment of Chief Constable, those reasons did not necessarily apply to the payment of the salary, and it was inconsistent to leave the payment of the salary to the County Council and not to leave it the right of determining the duty which was connected with the payment of that salary. This being so, he intended to move the addition of these words to the sub-section—"and the de- termination of the salary of the Chief Constable." This would, of course, raise the question of the right of the County Council to determine the salary.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he did not clearly understand whether his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would move the addition of the words he had mentioned if he (Mr. Brunner) withdrew his Amendments?

MR. STANSFELD

said, that he did propose to move the addition of those words.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, that as he had proposed the Amendment on Friday, he wished to say that he thought his proposal had then been thoroughly threshed out. He did not see how they were to carry on the Business of that House unless they loyally accepted the decisions which, after full discussion, had been arrived at. Therefore, although he hoped that before many years were over the decision of Friday evening would be reversed, he could not support the Amendment now suggested.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he hoped the Committee, by refusing to accept this Amendment, would show the people of the country for a second time that they regarded them as either idiots or dangerous wild beasts, who were not fit to be trusted with the control of their own police.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

said, he thought that possibly his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had misunderstood the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). In the Amendment moved on Friday there was no question of salary.

MR. HENEAGE

said, that his Amendment included the words "the appointment," which naturally included "salary." [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that was how he understood his Amendment, which also provided for "the control and the dismissal." In moving the Amendment he had intended to give the County Council full control over the police and the Chief Constable. As the majority had been against him, he accepted the decision of the Committee in good faith.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

said, his right hon. Friend was perfectly at liberty to accept the decision arrived at on Friday in any sense he pleased, but he must allow other Members to construe the word "appointment" in the sense in which it was ordinarily used. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would hardly contend that the word "appointment" included the fixing of the salary. The Lord Chancellor made many appointments in the course of the year, but he had nothing to do with the fixing of the salary that was attached to those appointments. He did not think the Committee could be justly accused of refusing to accept the decision come to on Friday evening if it adopted the intended proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that what he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax to suggest was, that the Committee, having negatived the proposal to place the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the County Council, should now accept an Amendment which would put the question of the salary of the Chief Constable in the hands of the County Council. Surely this would be absurd. Under Clause 29 of the Bill matters connected with the salary and the payment of the police force would be placed in the hands of the joint committee; and, looking at the fact that the Committee had practically determined that the control and administration of the police should be in the hands of the joint committee, the Government considered that all questions affecting the pay of the police should also be left to the decision of the joint committee.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that the Committee had not yet come to the decision which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) said they had arrived at. When the right Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) said that the "appointment" included the "salary," he must have forgotten what was the case with reference to boroughs. In the boroughs, whilst the appointment and control of the Chief Constable rested with the Watch Committee, the pay of the Chief Constable rested with the Council. The question of the pay of the Chief Constable was one of great importance, and the Committee could not, he thought, in any way more emphatically show its distrust of the new Councils than by depriving them of the power of the purse. As to the question of whether the pay of the Chief Constable could be regarded as distinct from the decision arrived at on Friday, he might at once tell the Government that when the clause dealing with the appointment of the joint committee came up for consideration, he should certainly, if no one else did, take the sense of the Committee on the question of whether the joint committee should or should not have full control of the Chief Constable as of all other constables. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) would withdraw his Amendment, as it was really in conflict with the decision arrived at by the Committee on Friday. The proposed Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) would then, in due time, raise the question whether the amount of the salary should not be fixed by the Body which raised the rates.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he wished to ask forthe Chairman's ruling on another point of Order. Supposing that the Amendment were not withdrawn, and were agreed to by the Committee, the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable would be transferred to the new Council. That was precisely the proposal that was negatived on Friday, and he wished to know what would be the position of the question under the Bill? Would the appointment of Chief Constable remain as at present intended, or would it also be transferred to the new Council?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that if the Amendment were carried the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable would undoubtedly be vested in the new Council. The decision of Friday last negatived that proposal, not by itself, but by associating it with the proposal that the control of the police should be placed in the hands of the Council. The Amendment was not entirely inconsistent with the decision not to allow the appointment of the Chief Constable to be under the control of the County Council.

MR. BRUNNER

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRUNNER

said, it was provided in the Bill that the Clerk of the Peace should be the Clerk of the County Council, and that seemed to him a ter- rible infringement of that very good rule, that taxation and representation should go together. Surely the appointment and removal of the Clerk of the Peace, if he was to be the servant of the County Council, should be in the hands of the County Council. With regard to Clerks of Justices, he did not know that he had very much to say; but he felt very strongly upon the appointment, removal, and determination of the salary of the Clerk of the Peace; he was an officer in whom he took a great deal of interest just now.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out from "other than the clerk of the peace and the clerk of the justices."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Clerk of the Peace would be the joint officer of the County Council and Quarter Sessions, and it was desirable, indeed he thought necessary, that his appointment should rest with the Committee composed of half from the Justices and half from the County Council, and which was provided for in Clause 83, So long as the Clerk of the Justices remained the servant of the Justices his appointment remained with the Justices, but so far as his salary was concerned it would be determined by the joint committee. Surely the hon. Member would not advocate that the joint officer should not be under the control of the joint committee?

MR. BRUNNER

said, he merely wished that the question of salary should be determined by the representatives of the people who paid the money.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, it was quite true that the proposal in the Bill was that the Clerk of the Peace should be the joint officer of the irresponsible body of magistrates and of the County Council, and he held it to be a most mischievous proposal. The Clerk of the County Council should be under the control of the Council, just as the Town Clerk was the servant of a Town Council. He altogether objected to this joint officer. The officer would probably have more than enough to do with his joint duty than he could do well, and his work would be done badly for both his masters. He (Mr. Cony beare) was animated by a desire that these new Councils should have full authority in matters entrusted to them; but the Government were too ready to listen to any suggestion from their Supporters in the direction of emasculating the Bill and making the authority of the Council more shadowy. In every possible way hon. Members showed their distrust of the new Authority, and every attempt to take away the functions and duties of the Council, every limitation of a right the Council might naturally aspire to, would tend to make it impotent and worthless, and a Body that would certainly not attract those men of honour, virtue, and probity, of whom so much had been said. The ratepayers felt strongly that they ought to have control over the salaries of the officers they paid. It was all very well to say this officer would be the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, but he would be paid from the rates, and it was for the ratepayers, through their representatives, to say what he should be paid, not an irresponsible body of magistrates. Beyond that, the Council ought to have full control over their officer. He would have to be constantly in attendance, and would probably take the minutes of proceedings. How would the House of Commons treat a suggestion that the House of Lords should have any control over the payment of the House of Commons clerks?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 130; Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had now to move an Amendment at the end in reference to the salary of the Chief Constable. He would not labour the point, but simply say the position he took up was that all the salaries payable out of the County rates should be determined by the County Council.

Amendment proposed in page 4, line 2, after the word "justices," to insert the words "and the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CONYBEARE

, in reference to what had been said, that appointment and removal necessarily included the determination of salary, said it would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Government last year made an appointment to a particular office without determining any salary at all. The late Colonel King-Harman was appointed without any salary, and there was a precedent then for considering separately from the question of appointment, the question of determining salary.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, he understood the argument against this proposal to be that those who had appointment and control should have the fixing of the salary. But if that were allowed, it would be the Justices not the joint committee who would fix the salary of the Chief Constable? But he asked, how was it proposed to fix the salary? The argument for the Amendment was simply that those who raised the rates should have the spending of them. That was the whole point and merit of the Bill, that it put the raising and spending of the rates in representative hands. Apart altogether from the vexed question of the control of the police, this question of determining salary should be placed in the hands of the elective Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it might or might not be right to give to Quarter Sessions the appointment of Chief Constable, that was a matter not now under discussion; but it was the proposal of the Government in the Bill, and the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Body that was to have tho appointment of the Chief Constable was to have no voice in the fixing of that officer's remuneration. That was a doctrine the Government did not assent to. If it was right that the appointment should rest with Quarter Sessions, as it did, it was evident that to adopt the Amendment might load to a conflict between Quarter Sessions and the County Council, and which might result in the Council making such arrangements as would entirely defeat the object of the Bill in leaving the appointment of Chief Constable with the Quarter Sessions. He was not contending now that the appointment should remain with Quarter Sessions; that would be decided presently. All he said was that was the arrangement in the Bill, and he could not consent to taking from the Body having the appointment all voice in fixing the salary.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed altogether oblivious of a fact that should be familiar to his Parliamentary and official experience. The House of Commons did not appoint civil servants or officers in the Army and Navy, yet the House of Commons determined what pay they should receive. He urged that in these financial matters, the County Council should be supreme. The representative body ought to have the right of determining the salaries to be paid from the county rates, and on that he should divide.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said, he might remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that all the occupants of the Government Bench received such remuneration as it pleased the House to vote, but only two official appointments were vested in the House—that of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker; all the other appointments were not in the hands of the House, though the House fixed the salaries. There could not be a more pertinent example opposed to the contention of the President of the Local Government Board.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, that was an argument that cut away the ground from the right hon. Gentleman's position. The representatives of those who raised the rates should have control of expenditure, and that was the principle that in the end must be recognized.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 161: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, the clause as it now stood provided that among the powers of the County Councils there should be the determination of the coroner's salary, and the division of the county into coroners' districts. His Amendment provided that the County Council should also have "the assignment of such districts."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, after the word "district," insert the words "and the assignment of such districts."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 9, after the word "election," insert the words "the place of holding courts for the revision of the lists of voters."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BRUNNER

proposed to insert, after the words just inserted, the words, "Provided that no selected Councillors shall have a veto in respect of such matters." He desired that the County Council should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion. There was, unfortunately, a feeling widely prevalent that men who did not owe their position to free election by their fellows, were not so fully to be trusted in such matters as the County Councils would have to deal with, as they ought to be. Personally, he did not suppose for a moment that the selected Councillors would do anything to secure a Party triumph. He had never found amongst the Justices of Cheshire an inclination to snatch a Party advantage in the settlement of affairs; but it was simply because he desired there should be no possible suspicion that a Party advantage was attempted, that he proposed that the selected Councillors should not have a vote in respect of such matters.

Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "provided that no selected Councillors shall have a vote in respect of such matters."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, as it was quite impossible to put the Aldermen in an inferior position to any other members of the Council.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the First Lord of the Treasury had given a sort of undertaking that the question of Aldermen would be re-considered.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

begged that the hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent him. He distinctly stated, in reply to a question put to him, that they saw no reason to re-consider the question.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, there was one argument which might be used with advantage. The House of Lords stood in a similar position to the House of Commons as the selected Councillors would stand to the elected Councillors. The House of Lords were not allowed any control over the money of the State. He thought the same principle might with advantage be followed in the case of selected and elected Councillors.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. C. HALL (Cambridge, Chesterton)

said, the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was simply to enable the County Council to take advantage of the Local Stamp Act, if they should think fit. By that Act the Justices had the power to receive the fees for contentious and non-contentious business under the Local Stamp Act if they thought fit, and a great many Justices had taken advantage of that Act, and now did their work entirely by means of stamps. If this Amendment were carried, it would be open to the County Council to adopt the Act, and so be able to carry on their business in the same way as tho Justices had done.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, after the word "meters," to insert the words "and of the Local Stamp Act."—(Mr. C. Hall.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. FIRTH

said, he would like to know whether this sub-section was intended to apply to London, and whether it was proposed to consider all the propositions affecting London separately.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that all these clauses applied to County Councils set up, and in that case applied to London. But it was quite open for them when they came to London, to consider the peculiar circumstances of London, and make special provisions.

MR. BRUNNER

proposed an Amendment, to leave out the words from "the confirmation" in line 23, to "and ten" in line 26. It seemed to him that the County Council was entirely unfitted to deal with the rules of loan societies. Loan societies were by no means confined to counties. He knew loan societies whose action extended over the whole country, and, therefore, he hoped that the words he proposed to omit would not be allowed to remain in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the words from "the confirmation" to the words "and ten" in line 26, inclusive.—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not see any reason why these duties should be withdrawn from the County Council, who he thought would be quite able to undertake them.

MR. BRUNNER

asked, to whom was the confirmation of loan societies' rules to be left. Loan societies had offices in many counties, and how was it to be decided which County Council should confirm the rules? He thought the matter had better be left as it was, or that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he had better not take it out of the hands of the Quarter Sessions and keep it in his own hands.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that that was a separate matter. This seemed to him one of those administrative matters which ought to be transferred to the County Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FIRTH

said, that they had now reached Sub-section XVI., would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what the sub-section referred to?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that until they progressed with the Bill and absolutely resolved what business should be transferred, it was impossible to say what the sub-section referred to.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, that they were asked, in fact, to give the Government a blank cheque. He understood that his Amendment, which came next, the Chairman had ruled out of Order. He presumed that most of the Amendments which stood in his name, followed the ruling on Amendment No. 15, earlier in the evening; but what he wished to ask, as a matter of Order, was whether it was possible to move a distinct addition to the clause, to the effect that powers other than those enumerated in the clause should be vested in the County Council. As a matter of fact, there was no Sub-section (2). What he proposed was that there should be a Sub-section (2). His Amendment was that "the County Council shall also have powers to deal with the following matters, namely," and then followed a list of duties. He submitted that the Amendment could scarcely be ruled out of Order on the ground that the powers enumerated were new powers, that not being powers belonging to the Quarter Sessions they could not be transferred. That might not be the proper place to insert the Amendment; but he submitted that the Amendment was really a substantial Amendment, by which it was proposed to extend the clause by the addition of a fresh sub-section containing further new powers which he desired to see added to the powers of the County Council.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had not in the least limited the power to endow the Council with powers. What he had said was that this Amendment could not be moved upon this clause, as this clause dealt only with the transference of powers.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he did not want to argue the case. He wished it to be perfectly clear that as he read the clause the 1st sub-section referred to the transference of powers, and he desired to add a sub-section giving the County Council additional powers.

MR. FIRTH

asked, if it would not be possible to add at the end of the clause words providing that there should also be given to the County Council certain powers enumerated?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; it would be quite inconsistent with the practice.

MR. CONYBEARE

I will move the Amendment later on.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, at end to add the following subsection:—(xvii.) "There shall also be transferred to the county council all powers now vested in the court of quarter sessions, or any committee of justices, to acquire or provide shire halls, county halls, lunatic asylums, judges' lodgings, assize courts, lock up houses, court houses, justices' rooms, police stations, or other county buildings or works.—(Baron Dimsdale.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that what he desired was fully provided for by Sub-sections 4 and 7 of this clause. The hon. Gentleman was afraid that the powers transferred would not enable the County Council to erect the various buildings which he specified in his Amendment. There could be no question about the fact that the Quarter Sessions had power at present to erect buildings, and it was perfectly clear that the powers of the Quarter Sessions with reference to buildings would be transferred by the clause to the County Council.

BARON DIMSDALE

said, that all he wanted to do was to make it clear that the County Council would have the power to provide the buildings required.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he dissented from the interpretation the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had put on this clause. At the commencement of the discussion on the clause, he called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the slipshod manner in which the clause was drawn, and further consideration of the clause confirmed him in his opinion. With all respect to the President of the Local Government Board, he ventured to say there was a question as to whether the powers of Quarter Sessions in respect to shire halls and so forth were transferred to the County Councils. Surely it would be better to put the matter beyond all doubt. The right hon. Gentleman said he meant the County Council to have these powers. There was a doubt in the matter, then why reject this Amendment?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman drew his attention to the language of the clause a few days ago, and he undertook that, before Report, the language of which he complained should be reconsidered. He agreed that, if necessary, an Amendment should be placed on the Paper dealing with the matter. It seemed to him that having, in the sub-section, dealt with all the questions of buildings, it would be inconvenient to put in another sub-section dealing with similar matters. It was in the first words of the clause that an Amendment was required, if it was required at all, and he had undertaken that the matter should be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. STANSFELD

said, that a short time ago the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement with reference to the appointment of Aldermen and the period for which Councillors should be elected. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in the House at the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was present; but he was not sure he had a correct impression of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. W. H. Smith's) undertaking.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that what he had undertaken with regard to a former clause was, to consider whether the length of the tenure of office of the members of the County Council should be three years or six years, one-third of the number retiring, in the latter case, every two years. He had not, however, undertaken to re-consider the question of the appointment of Aldermen.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

thought there was some slight misapprehension. If he recollected aright, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) got up and said it was a part of his proposal that the question of the Aldermen should be reconsidered. The Committee had already decided that there should be Aldermen. Then they negatived the election for six years, and decided that the elections should be triennial. Thereupon, he suggested that they might get rid of the Aldermen, and make the election of Councillors extend over a longer period. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent any understanding he had ever given. He understood the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the whole question.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had not the slightest fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it would be in the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) distinctly stated that he could not undertake to enter into any engagement to reconsider the question of the appointment of Aldermen.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to enter into any undertaking. It was entirely a matter for reconsideration.

MR. DIXON (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

said, he was in the House at the time, and he entirely agreed with the interpretation which had been placed by the First Lord of the Treasury upon the undertaking he had given, and that it did not apply to Aldermen.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he desired again to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whether he would not, in some part of the Bill, insert words which would be an encouragement to County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. Bankers did their work as treasurers of Local Authorities extremely well, and they did it without salary. It seemed to him that there were excellent reasons for offering encouragement to County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. The County Treasurer of Cheshire received £400 a-year. To his (Mr. Brunner's) mind, the work would be done very much better by a bank, and without any payment at all. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give him some assurance he would consider the matter in a favourable spirit; otherwise he would feel bound to frame some words to carry out what he wished.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Government would give full consideration to any Amendment he might prepare, but the matter he had now raised was not at all germane to the present clause. Personally, he felt reluctant to impose any restrictions in the matter.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not go beyond encouragement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Transfer to County Council of certain powers of Justices out of Session).

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

begged to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall).

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, after the words "stage plays," to insert the words "elsewhere than within boroughs."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he must ask the Committee not to assent to this Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman knew boroughs were of all sorts and sizes. All boroughs with over 50,000 inhabitants were to be created counties in themselves for the purposes of the Bill. There were a large number of urban districts which were larger than some boroughs; and it was quite clear that if the Amendment were carried, they would have some right to feel aggrieved. It must be borne in mind that full power was to be given to the County Council to delegate any powers of this kind to the District Councils, and he had no doubt that the County Councils would largely avail themselves of the power where the boroughs were of sufficient importance.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, he must suppose the President of the Local Government Board intended the clause as it stood to apply to London. There was a new clause on the Paper which would take the power away, and he desired to understand clearly that that power would not be taken away. He was in favour of the clause as it stood. This was a very serious change in so far as it affected London. It was a change which was wanted, and the representatives of London quite approved of it. The Government had dropped so many things that one would like to know if they proposed to drop this.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that by the Bill, as it at present stood, these powers would be conferred on the County Council of London.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

asked if the Government would accept the suggestion that boroughs of a certain size should have these powers. He understood the right hon. Gentleman objected mainly to the power being conferred on small boroughs, say, of 500 or 600 or 700 inhabitants. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He knew there were some ancient boroughs with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. Would the President of the Local Government Board consent that boroughs with 5,000 inhabitants at the last Census should have these powers?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think they ought to be asked to go further than they had gone in the Bill. The Bill gave to the County Councils full power of delegation, and the Government had every confidence that the Body they were creating would take into consideration ail the circumstances of the various districts, and judge for themselves as to the districts which might properly be entrusted with these powers.

MR. STANSFELD

asked permission to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should give this power to the County Council if he hoped that they would not use it, but give it to the District Councils. It was a pity not to give the power to the District Councils direct.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARON DIAISDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

move to insert after the word "plays," in line 32, the words "other than licences for the performance of stage plays by travelling troupes." It was unreasonable to suppose that the County Council, or even a Committee of the Council, should assemble when a troupe coming into a town wanted a licence. Considering the difficulties in the case, it would be as well to reserve the power of granting such licences to the magistrates. The magistrates were always at hand, and could be got together to grant any licence of the kind.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 32, after the word "plays," to insert the words "other than licences for the performance of stage plays by travelling troupes."—(Baron Dinisdale.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought it would be advisable to leave the clause as it stood. His hon. Friend was probably aware that it was usually the buildings in which travelling troupes performed which were licensed, and not the troupes themselves. This was just one of those matters which ought to be dealt with by the County Council. That Body could, of course, delegate the power to the Justices if they liked, or to the District Councils. He felt perfectly certain they could rely on County Councils taking measures to prevent any inconvenience arising in reference to such matters.

MR. BRUNNER

begged the right hon. Gentleman to leave this power where it was now—in the hands of the Justices. The right hon. Gentleman thought the County Council would be discreet enough to hand the power to the District Council. Why not leave it where it was? The present system was extremely convenient. The people could go now to the Justices without trouble; whereas if the County Council did not go through the right about face which the right hon. Gentleman expected they would, the people who wanted a licence must go to the county town for it.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reservation of business to quarter sessions).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 36, leave out from "inoculation" to "rate or," in line 37.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 38, after "Persons," to insert "against the basis or standard for the county rate, or."

MR. ROUND (Essex N.E., Harwich)

asked, if the preparation for the basis of the county rate would now be in the hands of the County Council?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

Certainly.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)

said, that as the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) was not present, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Gentleman's name—namely, to insert after "All," in line 40, the word "judicial." The clause would then read—"All judicial business of the quarter sessions not transferred by this Act," and so on. He took it that the intention of the Government was that all the business of the Quarter Sessions, except judicial business, was to be transferred to the County Council. If that were the intention of the Government, they had better say so.

Amendment proposed, in pago 4, line 40, after the word "all," to insert the word "judicial."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think it would be well to agree to the Amendment. The insertion of the word would hamper them very materially.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

begged to move as an Amendment, to insert after "business," in line 40, the words "other than judicial business."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of Order. Any dealing with judicial business is entirely outside the scope of the Bill; that was ruled to be the case on the question of the Instructions to the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 2, at the end of the clause, to add the words, "Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts Devizes)

said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The point had already been decided, or, at all events, considered in connection with another Amendment.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he failed to see the objection to the Amendment. The words it was proposed to insert were—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." The Amendment appeared to him to be entirely consistent with what they had done.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, the insertion of those words might lead to great difficulty. At present the Quarter Sessions did certain business. It was proposd to transfer to the County Councils a certain portion of that business; the rest was to be left to the Quarter Sessions. It would not then be proper to put in general words, such as—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Session shall be transferred to the County Council." All business not transferred would remain with the Quarter Sessions. It would lead to great misunderstanding if they added the general words suggested.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General on the point. As he understood the matter, the object of the Bill was to transfer to the County Councils the county business which was not specially dealt with in the Bill. The Amendment was perfectly clear. It was—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." He thought the hon. and learned Attornoy General must have many instances in his mind in which it had been found exceedingly convenient to have general words of this kind. A general provision of the kind very often removed great difficulty, because if they did not have general words like those, they might have litigation as to whether particular powers had been transferred. He could see in the future litigation under the Bill, unless some such words as these were inserted.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that a few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) moved, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) to put in the word "judicial." If that word had been inserted the clause would have read—"All judicial business of the Quarter Sessions not transferred by this Act to the County Council shall be reserved to and transacted by the Quarter Sessions," and then this Proviso would have come in, "save, as aforesaid, all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." The Committee negatived the proposal to insert the word "judicial," and, therefore, the clause stood "all business of the Quarter Sessions not transferred by this Act to the County Council, shall be reserved to and transacted by the Quarter Sessions." It would be quite wrong to put after those words a saving clause, which was only applicable if they had inserted the word "judicial."

MR. ANDERSON

said, that in that case he did not understand the ruling of the Chair, that the word "judicial" was outside the scope of the Bill. If that ruling was correct, the point taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General could not arise.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that his ruling was that any attempt to deal with the judicial business of the Quarter Sessions would be outside the scope of the Bill. The insertion of the word "judicial," after all, would not have dealt with that judicial business; it would simply have left the matter where it was.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 165: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 162.)

Question, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Powers of quarter sessions as to visiting lunatic asylums).

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause which he would briefly explain to the Committee. The object of the clause was to introduce the magisterial element into the visitation and overlooking of lunatic asylums. Well, the way in which this was provided for in the clause seemed likely to create friction, because it was suggested that the Court of Quarter Sessions should appoint a committee that should have certain powers in the matter so far as visiting and making remarks in the visitors' book, going over the asylums, and so forth; in fact, superintending the work that was entrusted to the County Council. That might—he did not say it would, but it might—lead to friction between the two Bodies—namely, the committee of the county magistrates, and the committee of the County Council. The County Council committee, it must be remembered, would, in all probability, have on it members of the magisterial Body. In all probability that committee would not be composed entirely of Councillors outside the Justices of the Peace, and magistrates would probably be placed on that committee. The magistrates might go on it as elected Councillors, or selected Councillors, and most probably would be represented in one way or the other on these asylum committees of the County Council. Well, it would be unwise to start a new committee in a county drawn largely from the same class as those who already formed the committee for the purpose of watching its operations. He felt strongly, at the same time, that the more lunatic asylums wore visited by people of respectability and authority the better, and, therefore, he would extend the power of inspecting them, and he would offer opportunities for as many surprise visits as possible, while avoiding the inconvenience which must arise from a dual control. At present all the Guardians had a right to visit every patient who might be in a lunatic asylum coming from their own Union. Well, it seemed to him (Mr. Stanley Leighton) desirable to leave that power as it stood, and taking that as a precedent that they should give the Justices the power of visiting lunatic asylums in regard to anyone who might be in them from their own Petty Sessional Division. In many cases it would be remembered the magistrates were called upon to sign the certificate before a lunatic was sent to the asylum, and the consequence was that in many cases the magistrates would have already seen the lunatic, and would have signed the order for his committal or reception in the asylum; therefore, it appeared to him, that in order to avoid friction, and at the same time to secure the advantage, so far as possible, of public inspection to persons placed in lunatic asylums, they should accept the principle of the clause while they altered the form of it in the manner he suggested. He did not think the form in which his Amendment stood upon the Paper was quite correct. It required a little alteration, and, if the Government would accept it, he would modify it so that it would run in this way— Every Justice of the Peace of any county shall have the same Power of visiting patients from his Petty Sessional Division as Members of Boards of Guardians have at the present time of visiting patients from their own Unions.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 3, to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions," in order to insert the words "Every Justice of the Peace."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member seemed to think, that if the Justices in Quarter Sessions appointed a Committee for the purpose of visiting those asylums it would lead to friction; but the hon. Member had failed to show why it would lead to friction, and he failed to show that this proposal to enable every magistrate to visit an asylum in the county would lead to less friction. It seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie) that the proposal of the hon. Member would be extremely likely to lead to friction, if every magistrate in a county had a right to enter the lunatic asylums at any time he pleased. He thought the proposal in the Bill was a good one, because it was advisable that a judicial Body like the Quarter Sessions, which was a judicial Body, should have some power of visiting asylums with the view of seeing whether abuses of any kind existed, and if they thought circumstances necessitated it, have the power of recording their opinion as to the state of things there existing. That seemed to him a very desirable power to maintain in the hands of the magistrates, and therefore the Government had provided that it should be so retained, but they certainly thought that it would be very inadvisable to allow every magistrate as an individual, and not as a member of a committee, to visit asylums. The analogy of the Guardians mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was not exactly in point, because it seemed to him that the Boards of Guardians had a locus standi to visit in the asylums those paupers who were supported by the Unions of which they were Guardians. That argument would not apply to magistrates in every part of the county. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was literally a single Motion, but, in reality, it would take a double form. The hon. Member proposed to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions," in order to insert the words "Every Justice of the Peace," so as to enable him later on to move other words to the effect he had explained. He (Mr. Waddy) should like to see the words "The Quarter Sessions" left out, and he would support the hon. Member in that proposal; but those words were not sufficient to leave out. Many hon. Members would agree with him (Mr. Waddy) that it would be desirable to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions of any county," in order to insert the words "The County Council," and then the clause would read— The County Council may from time to time appoint a Committee of their number, not exceeding 10, for the purpose of the visitation of the pauper lunatic asylums of the county; and so on. He (Mr. Waddy) simply desired to indicate what he thought desirable, and did not move these words in any way as an Amendment. He would ask the Chairman his view of the matter as to whether the proper Motion would not be to leave out the words he had referred to instead of merely "The Quarter Sessions," so that he would be in a position to make his proposal if the hon. Member's Amendment were either abandoned or rejected.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member seems to be unaware that Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 is a provision giving County Councils power over the enlargement, management and visitation of asylums for pauper lunatics.

MR. WADDY

said, he was aware of that sub-section, but did not know that it would give to the County Council the same powers as they might have under Clause 6.

MR. RITCHIE

said, as it was clear these asylums were transferred to the government of the County Council, it would be quite within the powers of the County Council to appoint a committee for the purpose of visiting such institutions.

MR. WADDY

said, that if that were so he would submit that nothing could be more absurd, even under the present Government, than to propose that there should be dual control of these asylums. They would have two Bodies to do the same thing. If the two Bodies were not to do the same thing, then, so far as one of them was concerned, the proposal would be a nuisance. If the work to be done under Clause 6 was the same as was proposed to be done under Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 it was an absurdity, and if not they ought to have a clear definition of the work to be done respectively by the one visiting Body and the other.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he rose to support his hon. Friend in this Amendment. The Court of Quarter Sessions in his county held a very strong opinion as to the inexpediency of this particular clause, on the special grounds which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board—namely, that it would prove a great cause of friction in a county. This clause was put in on the analogy to the case of visitation of the county gaols—to enable the Quarter Sessions to appoint a Body for the purpose of visitation. But it should be remembered that the circumstances were different. In the case of the gaols the magistrates were an outside Body who had to inspect what the Government were doing inside, while, in the present case, the circumstances were quite different. He thought the clause was useless in the form in which it stood in the Bill, and he would himself propose, with the full approval of the Justices of his own county and of many other Courts of Quarter Sessions, to omit the whole section. However, pending the putting of the clause as a whole, he approved of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton). They were about to take a very important step in the administration of their county lunatic asylums. They were going to hand over to a Body, practically a changing one, on which there would, perhaps, be no experts in the management of lunatic asylums, the management of such asylums. This Body would be elected for triennial periods, and on it the welfare and happiness of so many unhappy creatures would depend. Now, supposing the committee of visitors of the County Lunatic Asylums had nothing to do but visit them, not so much would need to be said about the matter, but those were not their functions at all. It was quite a mistake to describe the visiting committee of a county lunatic asylum as a purely visiting committee. It was not a visiting committee at all; the committee were the actual managers of the asylum, and though they were appointed annually by the Court of Quarter Sessions in the month of January, yet he thought that any Court of Quarter Sessions would subject itself to serious censure indeed which ventured to change the Committee of Visitors in January and replace them by an entirely fresh Body. And yet that was what the Bill proposed to do. As to the magistrates themselves, they were to be congratulated upon the fact that they were to be released from the business of managing lunatic asylums. There could be no task more unpleasant, and more distasteful to perform, than that of visiting lunatic asylums. The Visiting Committees had been gradually built up from the large Body of magisstrates of the country. They had grown up by slow degrees, and had become familiar with the working of these institutions—in fact, they had become what might be called experts. In his recollection, which went back for a good many years in this matter, lie had never known a chairman of the Visiting Committee of his county who would not have been able, if necessary, to go into the asylum and take entire charge of it if anything went wrong. How could the Government hope to establish committees of that kind if the committees were to be appointed triennially? Perhaps he was rather digressing from the particular subject of this Amendment, but he considered this matter so important that it was necessary the Committee should be fully acquainted with the whole nature of the case, and, as a matter of fact, he did not think it had fully appreciated the subject. The visitation of lunatic asylums was undoubtedly one of the most important functions that the Court of Quarter Sessions had to perform, and it would be one of the most important functions that the County Council would have to perform in the future. The House, therefore, was bound seriously to consider the importance of what it was doing by transferring this work from a Body of experts to this which was not an expert Body. Let them take, for instance, the appointment of a medical officer to one of those establishments. From time to time a number of juniors came before the Visiting Committee, who had to discharge the duty of selecting a fit person for the post of medical officer, and unless the committee had a knowledge—

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said, he desired to ask the Chairman, whether the question the hon. Baronet was dealing with had not really been disposed of under Sub-section 7 of Clause 3?

THE CHAIRMAN

The question of the management of lunatic asylums from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils has already been disposed of. All that can be discussed here is the question of the appointment of a committee of the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of inspecting the asylums, and even that could not be discussed as a whole, but only in so far as the particular Amendment before the Committee was concerned.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON

said, he would not resume the kind of argument he was pursuing as to the importance of the duties that had to be performed by the Visiting Committees. He would merely now say that he entirely concurred with the Amendment which had been proposed, and disagreed with the theory of Clause 6 under which they would be setting up a committee of Quarter Sessions to criticize and inspect the manner in which their successors in the management of the lunatic asylums discharged their functions. He did not think the plan proposed by the clause would work happily at all. He did not think, however, that the interference of the magistrates, which would be involved in the acceptance of this Amendment, in the asylums under the management of the committee would be objectionable, because the magistrates would be limited to visiting patients who had come from their own particular neighbourhood, and whom they would desire to see. Notwithstanding all that had been said against the magistrates in the course of this discussion, the poor naturally turned to the Justices in their own neighbourhood in order to see that things went right. Only that morning he had seen a poor woman who had looked to him as mediator between her and her husband, who was, unfortunately, confined in one of these establishments. He was the frequent means of telling the woman how her husband was getting on. If the magistrates were divorced from this position they would not be conferring a boon upon the poor people of the counties, but on the contrary, would be doing them an injury. He, therefore, supported tho Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, it seemed to him that a good deal of the speech of the hon. Baronet was really a strong argument in support of this clause. He desired, however, to call attention to a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy), who seemed to have lost sight of the object of these two clauses—Clause 3 and Clause 6. It had already been pointed out that Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 conferred the power of visitation upon the County Councils. It, undoubtedly, gave the County Council power to appoint a committee to discharge certain functions in connection with asylums, but Clause 6 was to give the Quarter Sessions a power to appoint a committee to visit the asylums, and to enter in the visitors' book the result of their inspection as if they were members of the committee of visitors of the asylum. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the magistrates should have power to visit only those persons in the asylums who came from their own districts. The hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) in the Amendment recognized the desirability of allowing the Justices to visit in certain cases people put under restraint in these asylums. When it was admitted that it was desirable that there should be this class of inspection referred to by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, it certainly seemed to him (Sir Richard Webster) that there could be no reason for suddenly saying that the Quarter Sessions should not have the slightest influence or control over, or even power, of inspecting lunatic asylums. The hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division (Mr. Waddy) had said, that either one Body would do something, and the other do nothing, or that both would do nothing, or that each of them would be a nuisance to the other. He (Sir Richard Webster) failed to see how it could be said that both Bodies would do nothing. They both would have power to visit—and here he would point out that this was only after all an optional clause; it was to provide that "the Quarter Sessions of any county may from time to time appoint a committee of their number," &c. It was considered further a most desirable thing to give the magistrates, who had great experience in matters of lunacy, power to see the functions granted under the Bill properly carried out. He did not see, merely because a new power was to be established, why the magistrates should not be able to see that the lunatics were properly cared for. If it were the fact, as was alleged in some quarters, that they could not transfer the power of managing a lunatic asylum to a worse Body than the County Council, there was all the more reason why they should have a Body of experience to discharge the function of visitation, at any rate, for some time.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, the answer to the remarks and arguments of those who opposed the Amendment was this, that, at any rate, a great number of those magistrates who were such excellent authorities on lunacy matters would be on the County Councils. Surely, the Government had expressed all through, by various arguments and limitations and restrictions and dodges of other kinds, sufficient distrust of the authorities they were constituting under the name of County Councils. They on that (the Opposition) side of the House had been implored by the Government day after day not to show their distrust of these worthy men, men of honour and virtue and respectability—these magistrates who had conducted themselves so well in the past—by suggesting that they could not do this, that they could not do that, and mainintained that this power and that that power should be left to them. He thought they had a right now to appeal to the Government to show some confidence in the new authorities they were setting up, the County Councils, and this appeal appeared to him to be all the more reasonable on the present occasion, because, presumably owing to the arrangements they had adopted in the course of this Bill, some at any rate of these magistrates would find places, if not as elected Councillors, at any rate as nominated Aldermen on the County Councils. That being so, nothing would be easier than for those who had this great experience in the treatment of lunatics to be appointed on the committees which the Councils would have the power, according to the Government, of appointing for the visitation of asylums. Surely they rely sufficiently upon the common sense of their countrymen to rest satisfied that the Councils would appoint upon these committees those members who were known as best qualified, by experience and so on, to deal with these asylums. He had sufficient confidence in the Councils to believe that they would not go and form these committees out of the least experienced and most unworthy members of their body, but that they would be careful to select those who had the most experience, and who, under the old system of things, would have had the direct control and visitation of lunatic asylums. Another point which had been urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury (Sir John Dorington) was, that the elected Council would be a most improper Body to have the control of this matter, of visiting lunatic asylums, because, as he said, that Body would be elected for three years. But there the hon. Baronet was wrong; such was not the scheme of the Government. The scheme of the Government was to have elections only every six years. If he was not misrepresenting the First Lord of the Treasury, according to that right hon. Gentleman's statement there wore to be a large number of nominated Aldermen, and, that being the case, it must be evident that the Council would not be a Council consisting of men here to-day and gone to-morrow. They would have Councils who would enjoy their functions for at any rate six years, and would contain a great many men who were nominated Aldermen, and whose positions were thereby assured. He would point to what had been the experience of Town Councils in this matter, when they were told that Members had been returned over and over again by the same constituencies for years and years. The right hon. Gentleman who usually sat with them below the Gangway was returned Mayor for Birmingham for six years, and it was said that he and some members of his family were still on the Birmingham Corporation. [Cries of "Question!"] This was the question, because it was contended by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Dorington) that these new Councils would be transient Bodies.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member's remarks were of a general character, dealing with the clause as a whole. It would be convenient if the hon. Member would confine himself to the special Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the special Amendment was to leave out the words, "The Quarter Sessions." He was meeting, or endeavouring to meet, arguments from the other side, but did not wish needlessly to trouble the Committee. It would be observed that the next Amendment on the Paper was one which had been already referred to by the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy)—namely, to insert "County Council" in place of the words "The Quarter Sessions of any county," and he (Mr. Conybeare) should like, with the permission of the Chairman, as it had been referred to, and as it might arise again, to say what would be the best course for him to adopt. He agreed entirely with the hon. Baronet opposite that the best course would be to leave out the clause altogether. It was intended to ask permission to substitute the words "County Council" for the words "The Quarter Sessions in any county," but he (Mr. Conybeare) thought, owing to the discussion which had already taken place, that probably the best course would be for him not to move the Amendment which stood in his name, which was, after the word "county" to insert the words "and the County Council," but when the time came, and the Question to add Clause 6 to the Bill was put, to follow the lead of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland) and vote against the addition of the clause altogether.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, he should like to say one or two words on what really was a most important question. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board really appreciated how important this question was. The Government had decided to transfer to the County Councils the entire management of the lunatic asylums of the county; but it was now proposed that they should appoint a committee of the Quarter Sessions to visit the asylums whenever they pleased. Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) looked upon it in this light, that if the County Council was a fit and proper Body to have the management of lunatic asylums, they ought to have such management. He would put a parallel case, drawn from the experience of business men in this House, in order to bring the case fairly before the minds of hon. Members. Supposing a Member of this House had deposed a man from the function of managing his property or business, and had put another person in his place, would it be considered a proper thing to appoint the man so deposed to look after the man who had been appointed in his place? He was putting the case as plainly as he could. He did not think there was any use or any necessity for appointing this double committee. As he had said, if the County Councils were to be trusted, it was no business of theirs to look after them. But there was a great deal to be said on the remark the hon. Baronet for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir John Dorington) had made with regard to individual magistrates inspecting those persons who were sent from their own particular Unions, and the certificate of whose detention they themselves might have had to sign. Individual magistrates might with advantage have conferred on them the right of going to the asylums in order to see that such persons received the treatment they deserved. That was a totally different matter altogether, and, therefore, whilst he did not approve of the clause as it stood, he thought there could be no objection to magistrates having the power to go to lunatic asylums in order to see certain individuals, and to ascertain for themselves whether or not they were receiving the sort of treatment they ought to receive.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

said, it was refreshing to the Committee to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and he (Mr. Broadhurst) was sure they were all deeply indebted to him for giving them a straightforward opinion from his side of the House as to the value of the County Councils and the concession proposed to be made to the magistrates in this clause. What they had anxiously listened for from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) was some statement as to the necessity for this clause at all. After they had passed Sub-section 7 of Clause 3, Clause 6, which was now occupying the time of the Committee, was not necessary, and he thought the Government would facilitate the progress of Business if they were to at once withdraw it. It was very interesting to hear from hon. Members opposite that they had no faith in County Councils, that they did not believe in elected Bodies, and that they did not think the County Council capable of discharging the duty of the visitation of pauper lunatic asylums. Surely that was an extraordinary opinion; but the Com- mittee knew that it had now got an honest expression of the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex that this clause was useless, and he was further of opinion that it was only retained as a sort of sop to the disestablished authorities in the county. To prevent confusion in the administration of an Act, if it ever became an Act, which they were not quite certain of yet, this clause should be removed from the Bill altogether. The Government ought to say what they meant. Let them say boldly that the county magistrates were in future to have no authority in this matter.

MR. COMMINS (Roscommon S.)

said, that instead of removing the Clause from the Bill altogether, he thought an Amendment could be adopted which would make it a very good provision. He quite agreed with the arguments of the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the appointment of a committee of the Court of Quarter Sessions would be really of no advantage whatever. The Court of Quarter Sessions, as they knew, consisted of many dozens of individuals who had the management of these asylums in their hands. If the management was taken out of their hands, he thought that, to give them the appointment of a committee to look after the thing afterwards, would be neither a blessing to them nor to anyone in the asylums. As was well known, lunatic asylums were places where persons were confined away from the eye of the public—where observation did not penetrate—and that, therefore, it was essential to appoint authorities outside to look after and inpect them. Every magistrate should have power to go into a lunatic asylum, and make an examination there of those persons who had been sent in from his own district, and whom he knew. The magistrate had now far more important powers than that. He could sign certificates sending people to these asylums. Why, then, should he not be able to follow them to the asylums, and see that they were properly treated there? He (Mr. Commies) could not see any objection to allowing the magistrate to go to the asylum; he could not see the inability of the magistrate to judge of the manner in which these people were treated. If he was unable to form such judgment, he should not have power to send people to the asylums. As, however, a magistrate was a man who was likely to be interested in lunatics receiving proper treatment, and as, in all probability, by a person who would be acquainted with the friends of the patients, and who had known the patients when sane, for these and for a variety of reasons magistrates who might feel, and justly feel, towards lunatics a certain amount of interest, ought to have power to visit the asylums whenever they thought fit. It would be an advantage, it seemed to him (Mr. Commins), to alter the clause so as to enable magistrates to visit asylums in this way. The privilege would not be thrown away, as magistrates were likely to have a great deal of time on their hands now that they had been disestablished and had had a great many of their present magisterial functions taken from them.

MR. NORRIS (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was aware of the resolution come to on this subject by the Middlesex magistrates. Their resolution, in effect, was that the clause which enabled the Quarter Sessions to visit lunatic asylums should be expunged from the Bill, inasmuch as the asylums would be under the jurisdiction of the County Councils, and the Visiting Justices would have no such control. He (Mr. Norris) cordially assented to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton), because he felt it was good that these asylums should be visited from time to time, and that too strict a watch could not be kept upon them. He did not, however, see the necessity for the nomination of two committees.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it would appear from the discussion which had taken place that this Clause 6 had no friends. The Government had inserted it in the Bill because they thought it extremely desirable that the magistrates, who had the power of making orders by which individuals were placed in these asylums, should also have some responsibility attaching to them, by means of visitation, of seeing that the patients were properly cared for, and were not detained any longer than it was right they should be detained. However, it seemed that the clause was not acceptable to the gentlemen who had hitherto performed the duties that they proposed to transfer to the County Councils. The Government, therefore, would not press it unduly upon the Committee. If the Amendment were withdrawn, they would withdraw the clause, and would consider between now and the Report stage whether it was necessary to make any further provision in the direction of this section. Probably it would not be necessary; but the matter should be considered, and, in the meantime, it would be well to withdraw the clause.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understood that it was not the Quarter Sessions that sent people to the asylums, but individual magistrates; and, therefore, it was individual magistrates, those who sent people to the lunatic asylums, who, according to the suggestion of the Amendment, were the people who ought to be allowed to visit the asylums in order to look after the patients. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to consider that point in his Amendment. If the Government were good enough to consider the question, he should have no desire to press the Amendment to a Division. He should be happy to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman had given—namely, that the matter would be favourably considered by the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 7 (Powers as to Police).

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

, in moving, in page 5, line 11, to omit the following words:— Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers, duties, and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to the appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables, 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, said, he moved the Amendment for this reason that the Chief Constable was the pivot on which the whole management of the county police turned, and he thought it only natural that the authorities that had the control of the police should also be the authorities to control the Chief Constable. He believed it to be reactionary and mischievous to exclude from the hands of the popular representatives the control of the police. The House had, however, decided that the County Council was not to have the sole control over the police; but he thought that the least that could be done would be to give the Body that did control the police also the control and dismissal of the Chief Constable. Therefore, in order that words might be inserted later on in the clause to give the control of the Chief Constable to the same Body which controlled the police, he begged to move that these words be omitted.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, leave out from the word "nothing" to the word "aforesaid" in line 17, inclusive.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the proposal in the Bill was that the appointment of the Chief Constable should remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions, and that the hon. Member wished to get rid of, his proposal being to transfer that appointment to the joint committees. Well, the proposal of the Government as to the appointment of the Chief Constable had been made in view of the fact that the Quarter Sessions of magistrates in counties were responsible for the peace of the county; and, that being so, they thought it right and proper—that responsibility being cast on their shoulders—that they should also have cast upon them the responsibility of the appointment of the executive officer over the police. He was aware that, so far as the control and administration of the police was concerned, it was proposed to vest it in a joint committee. He know also that that was a proposal objected to by many Members of the House, who thought that the entire control—not only the appointment of the Chief Constable, but the entire control of the police—should rest with the Quarter Sessions. Well, in his opinion, it was right and proper, having sot up a representative Body representing the ratepayers of the county, that that Body should have a share with the Quarter Sessions, who had hitherto had the entire control of the administration of the police, and it was with that view that the Government had proposed this joint committee. But the responsibility for the peace of the county would continue to lie in the Quarter Sessions, and, therefore, they thought it necessary that adequate provision should be made for the proper exercise of that responsibility, and they had considered that if the appointment of the Chief Constable rested in other hands, adequate provision would not be made for the exercise of that responsibility which would be given by the proposal of the Government. Those were the reasons which guided the Government in the proposal they made in the Bill that the appointment of the Chief Constable should be with the Quarter Sessions.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, he thought that in this matter the Government seemed to be going from bad to worse. The control of the police was claimed, on that (the Opposition) side of the House, for the County Council; but now they learned by this clause, and by the attitude of the Government, that the control of the police was given only partly to the County Councils, and that the appointment of the Chief Constable was given wholly to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Now, he would venture to say that, under these circumstances, the control which was to be given to the joint committees over the police was a pure pretence. What had the joint committee of the County Council and the magistrates to do in the matter of this control of the police? Why, surely the Chief Constable was the person who would manage and direct and control the police. Whoever had the control of the Chief Constable in their hands would be the party controlling the whole police force. They were face to face with this fact, that the Front Bench on the other side were providing that in the future the control of the police should be exactly what it had been in the past. Arguments such as these were used in respect of the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and some other Members on the other side of the House, who were in favour of the maintenance and control of the police being in the hands, not of the joint Body, but exactly in those hands in which they were at present. Now the Committee saw how that was to be effected. It was to be effected by placing the control of the only person really responsible for the police in the hands of the Quarter Sessions. And so they were to perpetuate in a much stronger form all the evils of the absence of popular control over the police force. He said all the evils of the absence of popular control, but inasmuch as they at present had no Body in whose hands they could place the control of the police, there was an excuse for them; but under the provisions of this Bill they were providing for the establishment of a popularly elected local Governing Body, and by definitely refusing to hand over to that Body the management of the police they were landing themselves in a position which was far worse than they had over been in before. By giving this popularly elected Body a share in the control of the police and not a share in the control of the Chief Constable, they were creating opportunities for various troubles to arise. He looked forward in London to the effect of this proposal with the deepest distrust and alarm. There was in the past ample ground why in London they should have the police under the control of the Home Office or some other public Department, and why they should have the Chief Constable in London nominated by the Home Office or some other Government Department, because there had been no elected Body to nominate or control him; but though they were to have an elected Council the Government wore going to refuse to that Body by this Clause 7—by implication, at any rate, as they were going to refuse it to the rest of the County Councils, though they could raise that point, he was glad to say as to London—the control of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable ought to re-echo the feelings of the population, he ought to be in sympathy with the views of the people, and ought not to be the representative of what in non-Parliamentary language were called "fads," as some of the nominated heads of the police were. He would merely point out as to this Amendment, and as to this clause, that the House was now called upon to vote on one of the most important matters in the Bill. It was now about to vote in its most vital form, whether the people or the magistrates were to have the control of the police. He and his hon. Friends were opposed altogether to the admixture of the judicial and administrative functions, and they opposed everything but a popular control over the police being granted by the appointment of the Chief Constable being placed in the hands of the County Council. As they could not now, through what had already been passed in the Bill—at any rate till they got to the Report stage—raise the question again, except in the matter of London, whether or not the County Council was to have absolute control over the police, they contended that if the Government were going to give the joint committee such control, they entirely stultified that committee if they took away from them the power of appointing and controlling the Chief Constable.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he hoped the Government would forgive him if he expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of their proposal in the particular clause under discussion. This proposal of the Bill had been discussed at great length by the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding in the county of York, and they had passed a resolution to the effect that the appointment of the Chief Constable in counties should rest with the standing joint committee. The discussion on that subject in the West Riding Quarter Sessions had been careful and prolonged, and the opinion arrived at was, it not actually unanimous—which he believed it was—at any rate that of a large majority. He thought that if they placed the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of one Body, and the control and management of the police in that of another, they would inevitably have mischief and friction. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the Government held the magistrates responsible for the peace of the county; but it seemed to him (Mr. F. S. Powell) that that was a responsibility which could not be discharged with efficiency or fulness if that Body had the power of appointing the Chief Constable only, and not the power of appointing and controlling those who served under him. He thought that if this responsibility was to be complete, it should be vested in one Body, which should be responsible for the whole organization of the police down to the lowest member of the force. Unless that were done there would be uncertainty and constant friction, and at a critical period in the history of the Council the possibility of anarchy and disturbance. He felt himself some doubt as to whether the Court of Quarter Sessions was the fittest Body upon whom the power of appointment of the Chief Constable could be conferred. The joint committees who were to have the control of the police would be comparatively small in numbers, whereas the Quarter Sessions were composed of large numbers. Now, as they increased the number of a Body who elected an officer, so they diminished the responsibility on the part of each gentleman who voted. Therefore, to place the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the magistrates would be to diminish the prospect of having the best and most satisfactory appointment. Sometimes under the present system, when the appointment of a Chief Constable took place, magistrates appeared on the scene who had not been at the Court of Quarter Sessions for years. He felt great reluctance in being bound to oppose the proposal of the Government, made no doubt with great sincerity and earnestness; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board desired Members on all sides of the House to exercise free judgment in criticizing the details of the measure. The observations which he had made were based upon the best consideration which he could give to the subject and the resolution of his Quarter Sessions in the West Riding of the county of York.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he hoped the Government would take into consideration the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell). He (Sir William Harcourt) did not think this was a question which would involve much difference of opinion on either side of the House. The question was what was the best arrangement which could be adopted for the preservation of the peace of a county. Was it probable that the dual form of government which was proposed by Her Majesty's Government would be a good one. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew very well that they (the Opposition) had not particularly favoured the appointment of these joint committees; but that matter did not enter into the present question. The joint committee, when it was once formed, was one Body and one government; but in the clause, as it stood, they were not only to have the joint committee consisting of two separate elements, but a totally different Body which was, in most material particulars, to exercise an influence entirely independent of the joint committee. In the old days, in time of war, it was not a very good thing to have a council in conflict with the commander of an army, and, generally speaking, operations of war were not well conducted under such circumstances. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, assuming that the magistrates were to appoint a Chief Constable who was distasteful to the majority of the County Council, how the system would be likely to work. There would be a Chief Constable appointed who would be distasteful to the general body of the police. Supposing that the Chief Constable demanded a certain number of men, and the County Council were adverse to that Chief Constable, it was quite plain they might refuse the men, they might be at constant war with the Chief Constable at the head of the police, and the police would be perfectly well aware that they were serving two masters who: were in conflict one with the other. Was that likely to work well in the government of the police? He could not think it was. What was the reason they were to distrust the County Council and the joint committee they proposed to set up? They did not distrust similarly appointed Bodies in communities quite as liable to disturbance as any they could find in counties. Take great towns like Liverpool or Glasgow; they allowed the Watch Committee there to appoint the Chief Constable, and they took the municipal government of such places as their model for legislation, and they adhered to it on the whole very closely and very faithfully. What would Liverpool or Glasgow say if Parliament were to declare that the magistrates should appoint the Chief Constable and the Watch Committee should administer the police? Would such towns have stood it for a single moment? Was the peace not safe in the hands of the Watch Committee? Why, then, were they to distrust the joint committee and the County Council which the Bill established? There was no doubt that the Justices were the conservators of the peace in counties; but so they were in boroughs, and if any disturbance arose the Justices had the right now to give orders to the police. In every borough in the country the Justices were the conservators of the peace; but it was not necessary on that account that they should have the appointment of the Chief Constable, and it seemed to him that if the Government would only adhere to the example they had taken as the model and framework of their Bill, they would do much more wisely than to set up this dual form of government, which was almost certain to lead to conflict between the two Bodies. If they could trust the County Council at all, let them trust it to this extent; if they did not trust it, let them not trust it under any circumstances. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would listen to the advice which had been tendered to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who had just spoken, backed, as it was, by a very important opinion, the opinion of the Quarter Sessions in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not know any Body which was capable of forming a sounder opinion on such a subject than the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding of Yorkshire; and if they were not jealous of this power, if they were willing to concede it, if they considered it was to the advantage of the organization of the police and of the administration of the police that this course should be taken, he could not see why the Government should be afraid in this matter to trust the joint committee who were to have the joint control of the police, the pay of the police, the determination of the numbers of the police, and, in fact, the general management of the police, and to place in their bands the nomination of the Chief Constable. As far as he could see, nothing but mischief would arise out of the arrangement proposed, and he hoped the Government would see fit to agree to the present Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), as he understood him, objected to the proposals of the Government because, while on the one hand the appointment of the Chief Constable was to be left in the hands of the Quarter Sessions, the control of the police and the management of the police was to be of a dual character. He was bound to say there was great force in the objections which the right hon. Gentleman raised; but he (Mr. Chaplin) adduced from his objections conclusions exactly opposite to those drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to desire that the appointment and control of the Chief Constable as well as the control of the police should be of the dual character which was contemplated by the Government.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not raise the question of the dual position of the joint committee; he regarded that as a single Body and a single control, though he might have preferred a difference in the composition of it.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the control of the Chief Constable and of the police should be in the hands of the Body which was contemplated by the Government, whether that be a dual Body, as he (Mr. Chaplin) thought, or a single Body, as the right hon.Gentleman considered it to be. He thought there was great objection to that proposal, and he adduced, as he said just now, conclusions exactly opposite to those of the right hon. Gentleman. What they ought to do in regard to this Amendment was to oppose it, so that when the proper time came for the discussion of the question, those Gentlemen who thought it right to do so could vote in favour of the whole control of the police, both of the Chief Constable and of the police force generally, being left in the hands in which it was at present.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) did not seem to appreciate the effect of the Amendment. There was to be a dual control. The first point of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Ellis) was that under the Bill the appointment of the Chief Constable was to be left to the Quarter Sessions entirely, and that, after the ap- pointment of the Chief Constable had been so left, there was to be a perfect dual control; that the County Council and the Quarter Sessions were to have power over the direction and the requisition of constables to perform any particular duties in addition to or outside their ordinary duties. The Amendment proposed that there should not be reserved to Quarter Sessions the appointment of the head of the Police Force, and that there should not be left to the Quarter Sessions, as one independent Body, and that there should not be conferred upon the County Council, as another independent Body, power to direct the police constables to perform certain duties. The result of there being two independent Authorities would be what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) stated—namely, that there must be conflict between the two Bodies, the County Council and the Quarter Sessions in giving directions to policemen. As had been said from the opposite side, it did seem absurd that those who had to direct the actions of the privates in the Police Force were not to be persons who were to have the selection and appointment of the head who was to control the force.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, he did not altogether agree with the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Warmington), and he must say that it appeared to him that the observations which were made a moment ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) were strictly logical and perfectly fair. The right hon. Gentleman took a perfectly intelligible and consistent view; he considered that the management of the police should be left entirely in the hands of the magistrates, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of such a view. But he (Mr. Waddy) and his hon. Friends took a view exactly the opposite; but it did appear to him that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, however much they might disagree with them, were perfectly fair and logical. What he (Mr. Waddy) desired to point out was that they had already agreed that in some form they must have dual control. They had given to the County Council the duty of raising the money for the payment of the police—they had given to the County Council the power of the purse, in the 1st sub-section of Clause 3; and having done that, they were now about to say that the duty of raising the money for the police should be the duty of one Body, and that the patronage should be the share of another Body. He did not, for one moment, agree with some observations made, to the effect that they were simply going to give the power of appointing the Chief Constable to the magistrates, and the power of appointing the subordinate constables to the County Council. He did not think it for one moment, because, in point of practice, every one knew perfectly well that the constables would be appointed by the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable would receive their names, he would judge of their qualifications, he would make such recommendations as were necessary, and in 99 cases out of every 100, even if the Committee gave nominally the appointment to the County Council, really the nominations would rest with the Chief Constable, who was the nominee in reality of the magistrates. That was one result of pretending that this was a Liberal Bill, when in reality they were not giving in substance that which they were giving in form. One difficulty which would meet the Committee at every turn would be that the Government were trying to take back with one band that which they were pretending to give with the other. They were in reality about to throw on the County Council the liability of providing for the police, while they were giving the patronage of the police to someone else. They were raising a dual control of the very worst form with regard to that matter as to which, of all others, County Councils would be the most sensitive and the most anxious. If County Councils were not fit to take care of the police, the Government had better tear up this Bill altogether. If they could not trust them with power, let them say so at once. If they wanted to have a kind of imperium imperis, if they wanted to have set over the County Councils some Body which was to keep the County Council in order, and govern them in regard to these matters which were too good for the County Council to take care of, and too aristocratic to be placed in the hands of the County Council, let them say so at once. It was a pity the Government had not raised this point in the way the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) had raised it; why should they not say at once—"We think that the whole of this matter should be left to the magistrates"? ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Beneh.] Quite right, that was an honest way of dealing with it, and he was glad to hear the cheers. Let them go to the country when the right time came with this distinct issue. He quite agreed that that was fair fighting, that that was exactly the kind of thing one wanted, and which one did not always get. Nothing whatever would be more satisfactory to the Opposition than to have this issue raised clearly and completely—namely, that County Councils were not to have the control of the police. Whatever the Government did, he begged them not to pretend they were giving to the County Councils that which they were not—to pretend that they were giving to the County Council power when, at the same time, they were withholding from the County Council a power which gave them the grasp of the whole position.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

said, he thought his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment (Mr. T. E. Ellis) would have done better if he had divided it into two, and if it was still possible for the hon. Gentleman to do so he suggested he should take that course, and that the Amendment should stop at the word "constables" in the third line of the clause. [An hon. MEMBER: He has stopped there.] He (Mr. M'Laren) was glad that had been done; because, as the clause stood, so far from there being dual control of the police there were no less than three separate Bodies which were to control the police. He believed there was nothing that was felt more strongly in the country, and in the county districts which were now to have County Councils, than the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. Those who were likely to be members of the County Councils resented very strongly that they were not to have the complete control of the police in their hands. They, perhaps, might be willing, as a matter of compromise, that a joint committee should be appointed as the clause provided for the control of the police; but with regard to the appointment of the Chief Constable they felt most strongly that, if the joint com- mittee was not to have the appointment of that official, then the control of the police was very largely a sham, and that that portion of the joint committee which was composed of members of the County Council would really have nothing but a nominal interest in the matter, and the other section of the joint committee, that section which was appointed by the Quarter Sessions, would really have the practical control of the police. There did not seem to be any real reason why this joint committee should not have the appointment of the Chief Constable. Half of the joint committee, the permanent element, would represent the Quarter Sessions. It was not as if the whole matter was to be transferred to the County Councils, a Body of which there had been no experience as yet; but half of the joint committee was to consist of the very gentlemen who for years past had had the management of the police, and whose greater experience, stability, and permanency upon the joint committee would ensure to them a very large, and probably preponderating, weight in the appointment of the Chief Constable and in the general control of the police force. Therfore, considering the experience they would bring to bear upon the joint committee, as distinct from the comparative newness of the men who were elected, he thought they might with perfect safety agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It was certain that the proposal of the Government could not be a final settlement; the question would be agitated by the County Councils, for the County Councils would not be content to leave the appointment of the Chief Constable, which really meant the control of the police, in any hands but their own.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, the difficulty there was in respect to this clause arose from the word "control." If the Quarter Sessions were to continue to control the Chief Constable, they must, he apprehended, also control the police. Supposing the Chief Constable determined to issue a proclamation, and the Quarter Sessions supported him in it, excluding the inhabitants of the county from some part of the county, and the County Council insisted that the people should have access to that part, would the Chief Constable be able to use the constables against the will of the County Council? If so, this proposition was most absurd.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

asked to be permitted to say a word or two in reference to the observations which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth). His hon. and learned Friend suggested that the Chief Constable appointed by the Quarter Sessions might issue a proclamation prohibiting the people going into a particular part of a district. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that no Chief Constable had power to issue any such proclamation. It was quite a commonplace of law that no proclamation issued by a Chief Constable had any effect as a proclamation in making that illegal which would be otherwise legal. That question had never been disputed. One or two observations had been made in regard to this clause, and one or two speakers had wandered off and had denounced the Government for pretending to give that with one hand which they took away with the other. He ventured to say that there was no ground for that statement in regard to this clause, but that it really was one which should be dealt with in the method adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who discussed this reasonably, as a somewhat difficult question for which a solution had to be found. One difficulty of the question had been indicated by a speech which was made in favour of the appointment of the Chief Constable being left to the elected Body, and it was said a person should be elected who was in sympathy with the feelings of the elected Body. He submitted that the question of the Chief Constable being in sympathy with the feelings of the elected Body had nothing to do with the discharge of his duties. In regard to the administration of the duties connected with the Criminal Law, it was the duty of the Chief Constable to use his best endeavours to put the Criminal Law in force, without regard to any question of what opinion any elected body might have regarding it. But in regard to the mere administrative part of the work of the police, that administrative part of the work would be controlled by the joint committee, which was contemplated in the second part of the clause. It had been said that the Justices had the control to a certain extent, and, according to well defined limits, of all constables who were engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law; but the Quarter Sessions had now, and would have when this Bill was passed, the special duty of watching over the administration of the Criminal Law, and surely it was advisable that the Court of Quarter Sessions should have the power of controlling that officer, who would have to direct the duty and services of the police at large, in the administration of those practically judicial powers, the administration of the criminal law, which must belong to the Quarter Sessions, which is judicial, and not to the elected Body, which is administrative. It had been said that the Chief Constable might say he wanted a certain number of men, and that the elected Body might refuse to give them to him. That was quite possible, though he thought that elected Councils would not be very likely to refuse a responsible officer the services of sufficient numbers to execute the duties which were cast upon him; but, if that were so, the Chief Constable would have the duty of carrying out the administration of the Criminal Law with such means as were given to him. He (Sir Edward Clarke) submitted to the Committee that really the principal part of the duty of the police—that was to say, that part which was connected with the enforcement and administration of the law—would still be done under the control and direction of the Quarter Sessions, and, therefore, it was reasonable that the Quarter Sessions should have that security for the proper administration of law within the area for which it was responsible, which it would obtain by having the nomination and control of the Chief Constable.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, he desired to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had had great experience in serving on Police Committees, as well as Gentlemen sitting upon the Opposition Benches, who were familiar with the working of Watch Committees—he wished to ask them, apart from all Party considerations, in regard to this question, how this clause would really work? How was it possible to administer the police force in the way which this clause pointed out? He could quite understand the views and policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); they were perfectly intelligible, they were justified by precedent, and he believed they would work admirably well in practice. The right hon. Gentleman would put the police under the complete control of one Body—namely, the Quarter Sessions, who had had that control previously, and there was no reason to believe that there would be any conflict in the work. He could quite understand the adoption of the principle advocated on the Opposition side of the House—namely, placing the police under Watch Committees appointed by the Councils. That also would work, and he believed it had worked, satisfactorily in towns. Now, let them see what the proposals of the Government amounted to, and how they would work. They had, first, one Body, which was to levy the police rate, which was to find the money, which was to be responsible for the financial departments of the police; and they had, secondly, another Body, which was to be composed partly of the elected Body and partly of the Justices, who were to have, to a certain extent, the control over the police, which at present was exercised by the Quarter Sessions. But that Body so constituted, novel in its conception, novel in its constitution, was nevertheless to find itself crippled in the exercise of its powers by being put in the position of having the Chief Constable absolutely independent of it. What control could the joint committee have over the police if the Chief Constable was able to set them at defiance, and to appeal to some other Body behind their backs? He put it to hon. Gentlemen who had any experience of work of the kind, whether such a system would work, whether a Chief Constable, who was like many other public officers, could be kept, he would not say, in a state of subordination, but in the state of discipline in which he ought as well as all other public servants to be, if one Body was to control the police force and another Body was to control the Chief Constable? Would they apply such a theory in the Army and Navy; could they point out any precedent in any department of English public life for such a one-sided, useless, and futile mode of controlling the police force. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said they should put the control of the police constable where the responsibility of the maintaining the peace lay; but that was just what they did not do in the case of the large towns. There the control of the Chief Constable and the responsibility of the peace had been permanently severed, and the right hon. Gentleman had no illustration to give that that severance had been productive of evil results. The hon. and learned Solicitor General was quite right when he said that the magistrates were responsible for the preservation of the peace. Let him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) give an illustration which came to his own knowledge. When he had the honour of being the Mayor of the town which he now represented, a disturbance of the peace was apprehended, so great a disturbance that application was made to the Home Secretary to direct the commander of the Northern District to send a troop of soldiers into Wolverhampton. The magistrates met; the Town Council or the Watch Committee had nothing to do with the preservation of the peace. At that critical moment, the whole control of the police and of the Chief Constable was in the hands of the Mayor and the magistrates. They sat there during the greater part of the night, and they were responsible for preventing, and happily they did prevent, any outbreak. But there was no conflict, no difficulty in the management, either of the police or of the Chief Constable, although the Chief Constable was appointed by the elected Body and paid by the elected Body. The Committee had decided that this was to be handed over to the joint committee. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, it had decided it was not to be put in the hands of the County Council. He presumed the Government were going to stand to their proposal with reference to the joint committee; he presumed there would be no wobbling in that respect. He assumed that if the Government did stand firm, there could be no question that with the support they would receive from the Opposition side, the proposal for a joint committee would be carried. If the joint committee were appointed, and the Chief Constable placed in an absolutely independent position, there would certainly be a great deal of friction. After all, the appointment of the Chief Constable was a question of patronage. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who spoke with authority as representing the unanimous opinion of the largest and most influential body of magistrates in England, in objecting to this clause alluded to the large number of gentlemen who gathered together in Town Councils on the question of the election of a Chief Constable. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not think that the appointment of such an officer by a contested election was the best mode of selection. He thought that a small committee was the very best Body by whom such an official could be appointed. One of the powers it would exercise with the greatest efficiency and satisfaction would be the choosing of a Chief Constable without all the unpleasantness of a popular election. He attached far more importance to the control and the dismissal of the Chief Constable than to the appointment. If they were to have a Chief Constable in thorough sympathy with the Council they must have that authority at one with itself. He asked the Committee to support the Amendment.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

hoped the Government would re-consider their decision on this point. Their proposal for the appointment of the Chief Constable was quite inconsistent with the proposal for a joint committee, and was, indeed, destructive of the system. If the Chief Constable were to be appointed by the Justices alone, he would be put in a difficult position with regard to the joint committee, half of which would be Justices and half not, and he would probably regard the Justices on that committee with very different eyes to those with which he looked at the other members. In giving the joint committee nominal control of the police, and in giving Quarter Sessions the real appointment and control of the Chief Constable, they were giving but a shadow to the joint committee and reserving the substance for Quarter Sessions. He therefore appealed to the Government, if they wished to carry out their proposal—which was defensible and perfectly legitimate—for a joint committee, to surrender on this point.

CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)

said, he intended to support the Government in their proposal for a joint committee, but he hoped the Government would see their way to lumping the whole police body, including the Chief Constable, under the joint committee.

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

said, he failed to reconcile the decision at which the Government had arrived on this point with some of the declarations made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board at an earlier stage of that Bill. Unless his (Mr. James's) memory failed him, the right hon. Gentleman then insisted in more than one of his speeches, that he trusted the people—indeed he gave expression to that sentiment at least half-a-dozen times. But now he came to the question of trusting the people in a practical manner he stepped aside. Having presided for a good many years in a southern rural constituency, he (Mr. James) had had opportunities of watching the operations of a Police Committee, and he had himself been a member of such a committee in Quarter Sessions. The fault he found with the system was one to which there could be little objection. It appeared to him that the police had really not enough to do. In many cases their numbers might be considerably reduced, and without wishing to be offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would point out that the police in the country often acted during the winter as assistant game keepers, and in the summer amused themselves in disporting at cricket matches. Now, if the numbers of the police were to be diminished, and the patronage of the Chief Constable also diminished, there would be friction at once between the Joint Authority—the County Council and the magistrates—and it would make confusion worse confounded. If hon. Members opposite really trusted the people, he wished they would bring themselves to believe that the people were just as much interested in the maintenance of law and order as they themselves were. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the early part of the evening said the County Councils would have very little to do. Well, he (Mr. James) was very much disposed to agree with him, and if they carried the clause in its present form and had a divided jurisdiction, he believed that not only would the County Council have very little to do, but they would always be quarrelling amongst themselves like cats and dogs.

MR. KENRICK (Birmingham, N.)

said, he wished to point out, as Chairman of the Watch Committee in a great borough, that the control over the Chief Constable meant there, practically, the modelling and control of the police force. The force was exactly what the Chief Constable made it, in the same way that a school was what the headmaster made it. To give, then, the appointment of the Chief Constable to a Body other than that responsible for the force, would be to cause a great deal of friction. In Birmingham, the appointment and control of the Chief Constable meant really the control of the police force. As the Government had set up a joint and efficient committee he hoped they would give them real powers.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, he had served as Chairman of a Police Committee for nearly 20 years, and its action had simply been to advise the Chief Constable in matters relating to the administration and allocation of the force. Practically, the Chief Constable of a county filled the position of Colonel of a regiment, and he hoped that that would remain so. In all money matters, and on points as to the disposition of the force and the building of new police stations, he consulted with the Police Committee. That was especially so in his (Mr. Wharton's) own county, where they had a very large, dense, and shifting population. Men had frequently to be transferred from one portion of the county to another, and new police stations built. There seemed to be an idea amongst some Members of the Committee that the Police Committee had actual control over the police itself. That, however, was not the case in counties. There the control of the police force was in the hands of the Chief Constable. Hon. Members representing boroughs seemed to think the Chief Constable of the county and Head Constable of the borough held exactly the same kind of position. But that was not so; they were essentially different. In the borough, the Head Constable was under the command and control of the Watch Committee; in the county, the Chief Constable was, by Act of Parliament, the Watch Committee, and he was only advised by the Police Committee on matters relating to the administration and disposition of the force. Now, he would have been well satisfied if the Government had seen fit in their Bill to leave to the county magistrates the control of the police which they already possessed. He had listened with great respect—as he always did—to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who spoke with reference to what might happen in regard to trade organizations, and with respect to large gatherings of working men—say, in the North. Now, he did not want to rake up the past; but he remembered that on one occasion he saw the whole of a county in the hands of a miners' organization, and for one day the Miners' Union was fighting tooth and nail with the police. Six police stations were absolutely wrecked; 100 men were bleeding on that occasion, and one man was killed. The Durham police constituted as fine a force as ever existed, and they were looking to this House with great apprehension lest they should be transferred to other control. They were entitled to consideration. This ought not to be made a Party question, and he hoped the House would do its best, in the interests of the observance of the peace, to keep Party considerations out of it. Let the Committee consider well what they were about. Were they willing to transfer the police from the present administration to some new Body, as to whose future existence and success they know nothing?

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,) Arfon

said, he quite agreed that that was not a Party question. What they wanted to do was to ensure the best chances for selecting the best Chief Constable to manage the police. They all agreed that Quarter Sessions had shown great ability in the management of affairs; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it was not a fact that the appointment of Chief Constables had been in the past the weak part of the management? Frequently, the appointment had been made practically by men who had taken no part whatever in the management of the county business; and he would ask, was not a good selection more likely to be made by a small committee than by the Court of Quarter Sessions? In the past, it had been a question rather of personal influence than of selection; a large number of magistrates never took any part in the county business except when these appointments were to be filled, and the ruling power in making them was personal consideration.

MR. W. BECKEPT (Notts,) Bassetlaw

said, he differed from the Government on this question, as he was not in favour of the appointment of the Chief Constable remaining in the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions. He would tell the Committee what his experience had been. Some few years since the appointment of Chief Constable was vacant in the West Riding of Yorkshire, with which he was connected, and it was a matter of notoriety that, some weeks before it was filled up, candidates made it their business to go round to every member of Quarter Sessions. The result was that some gentlemen were weak-minded enough to promise their votes before-hand. Some, of course, were sufficiently strong-minded not to do so. Well, the gentleman who was eventually chosen was selected mainly because he was blessed with 13 children. He had no intention of casting any reflection on the gentleman appointed. Comparisons were odious; but he wished to point out the extreme inconvenience and great demoralization arising from such a mode of election. Therefore, he was not in favour of the appointment remaining in the hands of Quarter Sessions. Neither did he much care about its being in the hands of the joint committee; but he should infinitely prefer it to be vested in the Home Secretary, as, if that were the case, they would have a much better chance of getting good men appointed without regard to their domestic circumstances. A variety of county appointments were made by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. As the less of two evils, he did not object to the appointment being made by a joint committee of the County Councils and the Magistrates, though he should prefer to place the duty on the Home Secretary; but nothing could be more objectionable than the present system of appointment by 200 to 300 magistrates. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax that there could be no objection to allowing the County Councils to fix the salary of the Chief Constable.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire N.E., Darwen)

said, he could not approve the proposal to vest these appointments in the Homo Secretary, and he sincerely hoped the Committee would weigh well the words which had fallen from the lips of his hon. Friend the Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton), who implied that the control of the Chief Constable meant really the control of the police. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. W. Beckett) referred to what he considered to be a gross abuse in the case of a par-particular appointment. No doubt, such things did occur; but he would venture to remind the Committee that the clause provided for the appointment, control, and dismissal of the Chief Constable, and that, even if a mistake were made in the appointment, great harm was not necessarily done. What, however, would constitute a great evil would be if the Chief Constable did not consider himself secure in carrying out the duties laid upon him, as he would feel if he were liable to dismissal for doing what he believed to be his duty. It was just that danger which some of them feared might happen if the Chief Constable were under the control of and subject to dismissal by an elective Body. He hoped that hon. Members would fully realize what they were doing in voting for this particular Amendment, which referred to the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. They were not dealing with the question of dual control; that point was entirely separate. He believed every Member of the Committee would feel the importance of leaving the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and he fully agreed with the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ripon Division that the control of that appointment meant the real control of the force. He should, therefore, vote for the proposal of the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I should like to point out that the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) moved to leave out certain words down to "aforesaid" in line 17. But, there being several other Amendments, I propose to put the words "nothing in that Act" shall stand part of the Clause. If I did not do that, the subsequent Amendments would be shut out.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, the question really, then, was not the simple one put by the noble Viscount, but it was complicated by the question of dual control. Perhaps it would be better for his hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment, in order to facilitate a vote being taken on the more important question.

MR. T. E. ELLIS

I moved to omit the words from "nothing" to "Chief Constable," in line 13.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I understood the hon. Member to move the Amendment on the Paper. If he withdraws that I will put the other.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he was afraid that Amendment would bar his Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, that if the Amendment to omit the words down to "Chief Constable" were put, it would prevent the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) being discussed.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Memler moved, and so I stated, to leave out the words from "nothing" to "aforesaid;" but I only propose to put it down to "Chief Constable," so as to enable the other Amendments to be discussed.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

It might be a greater convenience to the Committee if the Amendment which stands in my name were now discussed.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "nothing in this Act," &c., down to "the appointment of the Chief Constable."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

said, the question really involved in the Amendment was the dual control of the police, and he ventured to submit to the Committee that it was impossible to discuss the proposal reserving to the Court of Quarter Sessions the power of appointing, controlling, and dismissing the Chief Constable, without considering what was necessarily involved in it— namely, the whole question of the control and management of the police force. The Government proposal, as it stood, involved an extraordinary anomaly. It proposed that for the future the police should be paid by one Body, officered by another Body, and controlled by a third Body. When they came to examine it, he thought that the Committee would discover that the proposal of the Government was of a much simpler character. It really was that the police should be paid by an elective Body representing ratepayers, but that the whole control and management of the police should be vested in the magistrates sitting in Quarter Sessions. He was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton), who spoke on that matter with the authority of great experience, such a candid and accurate statement of the real facts. He would like to call the attention of the Committee to the material parts of the Act of 1839, which regulated these matters, and which, even if this Bill were passed, would continue to regulate them. That Act, after providing that the Chief Constable should be appointed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions, laid it down that the Chief Constable should appoint other constables, and at his pleasure should dismiss all or any of them, and that he should have the general disposition and management of all constables so appointed, subject to such lawful orders as he might receive from the Justices generally in Quarter Sessions assembled. Very well. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be so apprehensive about the dual control given by the Bill, because, after all, the dual control was a mere sham, and nothing but a sham, seeing that the Government reserved to Quarter Sessions the powers they already possessed, and the Chief Constable would be enabled in the future to act as he now did, subject to the orders of the magistrates. It was most important that the Committee and the country should understand the real character of the proposal under consideration; and when they supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend to omit that part of the clause, they were really deciding the question which was at the root of the whole matter, and they were determining in whose hands the control and management of the police should be for all time to come. Something had been said—he believed by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—as to the importance and value of the police being subject to judicial authority. A certain amount of confusion of thought appeared to prevail on this matter. The management of the police by Quarter Sessions under the existing Acts was a thoroughly administrative function, and had nothing whatever to do with judicial authority. If the management of the police were transferred to the elected Councils, as they asked the Government to transfer it, the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or rather the magistrates individually, would have precisely the same power as the Common Law gave them to call on any police constable in the county to execute the law and maintain order throughout the district. It was, therefore, wholly beside the mark to draw, as the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) did, on historical reminiscences as to disorders that existed in the county of Durham at one time. The fact was that in the future, as now, the Justices would be able to call on the police to assist them in the execution of the law, and all the Government were asked as to these elective Bodies was that as they had conceded to them the duty of providing the funds out of which the force was to be paid, so they should give them the administrative and executive powers which at present were vested in Quarter Sessions, and which had nothing whatever to do with judicial functions. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and remove this patent blot from the Bill.

MR. E. B. HOARE (Hampstead)

said, he could not hope that the Government would attend to any words that might fall from him; but he could not help thinking that the position they were now in was very anomalous. There were three courses open to the Government. They could either hand over the police to the magistrates—as many persons on that (the Ministerial) side of the House thought they should—or hand them over to the County Councils—as hon. Gentlemen on the other side thought they should—or they could hand them over to joint committees, which was what they themselves wished to do. It did seem to him that if the Government were right in their proposal to hand the police over to a joint committee, they should also hand over to that committee the control of the Chief Constable. If the Army were handed over, so, also, should the command of it be handed over. He spoke with some diffidence on the matter; but he felt that the position of the Government was so illogical that he could not help hoping that even now, at the eleventh hour, they would accede to the Amendment.

MR. NORTON (Kent, Tunbridge)

said, he thought the question should be allowed to stand over until the Committee had decided whether the control of the police should be placed in the hands of the county magistrates or in those of a joint committee.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said, it seemed to him that there was a great deal in what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to recommend it to the Committee. They had not yet decided whether any powers of control over the police were to be vested in a joint committee, and until that point had been decided he scarcely saw how they could decide on the matter now under discussion. He did not know how it could be done; but it certainly seemed to him desirable that the Committee should come to some decision as to the constitution of the joint committee to whom they were to refer certain powers for the management of the police. If the committee were properly constituted to control the police, it seemed to him only logical that the appointment of the Chief Constable should be placed in their hands. But until they had decided on the appointment of a joint committee, it certainly appeared rather difficult to decide the point they were now discussing.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the proper course would be to omit these words for the present. That would meet the views, certainly, of the majority of the House, because if the House were to decide against a joint committee, then the police would remain under the Quarter Sessions, and they would have the appointment of the Chief Constable, and the words under discussion would not be wanted at all. If the Committee, on the other hand, should determine in favour of the joint committee, that committee would have the control both of the police and the Chief Constable. Whatever view they took of the matter, and whatever the view of the Committee might be, the question in debate would be settled by that decision. All, therefore, they had to do now was to omit these particular words, and then take the decision of the Committee on the question of the joint committee. The other matter would follow as a matter of course.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale. He had thought for some time that they were putting the cart before the horse in the discussion they were engaged in. But he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his suggestion as to the way in which they ought to proceed. It seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that the best way for them to arrive at a decision as to whether or not the police were to be left in the hands of a joint committee would be for the Amendment to be withdrawn, and for a decision to be taken on the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). If that were settled in favour of the Amendment, then, in the next line of the clause, the question would follow as to whether or not the Chief Constables were to be dealt with in the same way. If this suggestion should find favour with the Committee, it certainly seemed to him a practical way of dealing with the subject.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he was afraid that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly one which, according to the Rules of the Committee, they could adopt. It would not be possible to go back on the words already passed. He thought, however, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton) and his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) was one they ought to adopt, without in the slightest degree prejudicing the question before them. They should allow these words to go out for the present, and then, at once, proceed to the consideration of the more important question as to whether the control of the police was to be in the hands of the magistrates, or to be put in the hands of a joint committee. When that question was decided, it would be quite in their power to decide afterwards the question they had been discussing.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, that if that course were adopted, it would, perhaps, be as well to leave out more words than the immediate proposal contemplated.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw his Amendment, because if these words were not omitted, and if afterwards they did not omit the rest of the clause, all these powers would remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions as before; but if these were omitted, and they retained the rest of the clause, then it was quite clear they would have gained what was the obvious desire of the majority of the House—namely, a declaration that there should be one and the same control over the Chief Constable and the police. He, therefore, ventured to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would continue to press his Amendment, so that it might be either carried or lost.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked how the Chairman would put the Question?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Question would be put so as to safeguard the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex. If too many words were omitted, the hon. and gallant Baronet would not be able to move his Amendment in the special form in which it stood on the Paper, but would have to raise the question in some other form.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked whether the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) could not allow these words to be omitted, and then so contrive his Amendment afterwards as to render it admissible?

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, it appeared to him that ift he words were struck out it would be altogether impossible for him to raise the question at all, because the Committee would then have decided that the Chief Constable should not be in the hands of the magistrates, and they would also have decided that there should be a dual control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby know perfectly well what these ques- tions were, and that if a Member missed his opportunity of making a statement and taking a Division on that which he believed to be of the utmost importance in the interests of the country he might never obtain it again. His view was that the police should remain in the future as they had been in the past—in the hands of the magistrates. He had contended for that from the beginning—since he spoke on the second reading; and he had not deviated one hair's-breadth from his earliest declaration. So far as he knew, he had always had the courage of his opinions, most certainly when he believed it to be in the interests of his country. He should, therefore, like to have an opportunity of placing before the Committee the views he so strongly entertained on this question.

MR. JAMES STUART

I rise to Order—

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he understood it to be the wish of the Committee that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should have an opportunity of raising the question in the most distinct form, and if he were unable to do so under the circumstances now stated, the best course would be to move to report Progress, in order that he might himself place on the Paper an Amendment to carry out the object he desired. The subject the hon. and gallant Baronet wished to deal with was, no doubt, a more important one than that now under consideration.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, he rose to a point of Order. He desired to point out that the hon. Gentleman who stood in the way of this Question being put could equally well get his point raised before the House by moving the rejection of the remainder of the clause. The hon. and gallant Member could add before the words "Chief Constable" words which would hand the rest of the police over to the control of the Quarter Sessions. If, after the Amendment before the Committee should have been passed, the hon. and gallant Baronet moved the rejection of the last part of the clause, he would, if he succeeded in his Motion, practically do the same thing as he desired to do by his present Amendment, for the control of the rest of the police would vest in the Quarter Sessions. He (Mr. James Stuart) therefore hoped that there would be no adjournment of the debate now, and that they would be allowed to proceed to a Division on the question they had debated for a long time, and which was now ripe for decision.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he ventured to differ from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. As a matter of fact, the Committee had not debated for a single moment the question whether the police should be under the control of a joint committee. The question the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was asked to settle was the question as to the control of the magistrates. ["No, no!"] Yes; and, for his (Mr. Chaplin's) part, he sincerely hoped the hon. and gallant Baronet would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that they had got into a very considerable muddle, and that it was very desirable that they should have a fresh and full opportunity of discussing this question of the police. In order that they might have that opportunity, he begged leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) that they had got into a muddle at all. The House seemed to be entirely agreed on one point—namely, that the authority over the Chief Constable ought not to be separated from the Police Authority. They differed, no doubt, as to what the Police Authority ought to be; but they were all agreed that the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest with the Police Authority. Well, having now discussed the question of the Chief Constable for some time, all they had to do was to get that out of the way and leave the road clear for the discussion as to who was to be the Police Authority. There certainly was no desire to prevent the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex from raising the question in the clearest form, but it would be raised on subsequent words. All the hon. and gallant Baronet would have to do would be, when those words came on, to oppose their addition to the clause. If that was so, why should they allow all the time they had devoted to the discussion of this particular point now before the Committee to be wasted?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman was under a misconception when he said that the Committee were entirely agreed that whatever might be the authority for the control of the police the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest there. He did not agree with all that—that the matter was decided unanimously, or that they were anything like unanimous upon it. What he believed was that it was the expressed wish of the Committee that the question of who was to have the control of the police should be decided before that of who was to appoint the Chief Constable. ["No, no!"] That was the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and it was supported by some of his (Mr. Ritchie's) hon. Friends behind him. The Government had thought that, on the whole, this was not an unreasonable proposition to make. The question then arose how it could best be done. It was suggested that the first words of the clause should be left out, on the clear understanding that, whatever the decision was which the Committee might arrive at as to the control of the police, the matter would be revived again in another form. That was the distinct understanding. Then they arrived at the question of the best mode of amending the clause so as to decide the question of controlling the police; and it was because there was some doubt as to the best means of doing that, that the Motion to report Progress was made. The Government would not consent to report Progress on the understanding that the same Body that had the control of the police was to have also the appointment of the Chief Constable; but only on the understanding that the question of the Body into whose hands the control of the police was to be given should be decided, so that the Committee might afterwards come to a conclusion as to the Body into whose hands should be committed the appointment of the Chief Constable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.