§ House in Committee on the County Constabulary Bill,
§ Several amendments were made and proviso added.
§ On clause 24, disqualifying certain justices of Kent, Essex, Herts, and Surrey, from acting in the execution of the Constabulary Act, 2 and 3 Vic, c. 93.
§ Mr. Ludlow Bruges moved the omission of the clause.
§ Mr. Fox Mauleopposed the amendment. He thought the clause was necessary to avoid giving magistrates residing without the district of the metropolitan police, undue privileges and influence, within that district.
§ Mr. J. Jervisagreed with the principle of the clause.
§ Sir James Grahambegged to point out the invidious position in which those counties which were specified were placed. He thought that the provision should be made general.
§ Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that the object of the clause was this. Certain rate-payers in one part of a county might agree to adopt the county constabulary force for their own protection, and he thought that it would be unfair to permit the magistrates of another part of the county to come down, and, by their votes, to swamp the rate paying magistrates of the district, in the appointment of the officers under the system. He had introduced the clause for the purpose of protecting the magistracy in the rural parts of the country As, however, Members coming from those districts had objected to it, he was content to withdraw the clause. But if the rural magistracy found themselves swamped by the magistracy in the district of the Metropolitan Police Act, it would be their fault not his.
§ Clause expunged.
§ Other clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed, the report was received; bill to be reconsidered.