HC Deb 02 May 1856 vol 141 cc1928-44

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 3 (The Secretary of State, upon representations from Boroughs, to arrange terms of consolidation with counties).

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that he was very much disposed to move that this clause be omitted, but would wait until the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated its precise object. The opposition which the Bill had encountered arose principally from the power of interference which it would give to the Secretary of State. In this clause he was empowered to interfere when a county refused to amalgamate with a borough at its request. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet ever heard of a case in which a borough had desired to be amalgamated with a county for police purposes, and the county had declined? He believed the facts were quite in the opposite direction, and that in almost all cases counties desired amalgamation with boroughs, but that it was the boroughs which declined.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, by the present law consolidation could only take place by mutual agreement, and might be dissolved either by the county or the borough at any time. Great objections had been raised to a compulsory consolidation, while at the same time the Government were of opinion, strengthened by remarks from various quarters, that an efficient police system could not be maintained in a borough with a small population. Where the population did not amount to 5,000, boroughs were excluded from the benefit of the Government grant; most of them were below that number, and in a great many there were not more than two to four policemen. Such boroughs might desire to amalgamate with counties, and although he could not name an instance in which a county had declined to amalgamate, hitherto boroughs had shown a great disinclination to do so, and such a case might happen. The present clause gave the Secretary of State power, in case an application made by a borough to amalgamate with a county were refused, to settle the terms of such consolidation. The clause was entirely in the interest of the boroughs.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he thought the clause would be inoperative, but as the power it conferred upon the Secretary of State might prove to be useful, he should support it.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that the borough he represented had amalgamated their police with the county, but the 13th clause of the Bill, which must be taken in connexion with the present clause, and which enacted that agreements for consolidation should not be determined without the sanction of the Secretary of State, had so excited the alarm of his constituents that they had given notice to put an end to the amalgamation. He would, therefore, recommend the right hon. Baronet to withdraw both clauses. Many boroughs were willing to amalgamate with the counties, but they would decline to do so if the arrangements were made to partake of the indissoluble character of a matrimonial union.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that the 13th clause should not be taken in connexion with the present. If the Committee should determine that the 13th clause should not stand part of the Bill, he would then consent to the omission of the 3rd clause.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 4.

Clause 5 (Constables to perform duties connected with the Police, as directed by the Justices or Watch Committee).

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he objected to the unlimited power given by the clause, and would move the insertion of words to define the duties to be undertaken by the police, namely:— The duties of inspectors of weights and measures, the duties of inspectors of lodging houses, that they shall serve summonses, precepts, and notices, and undertake the conveyance of prisoners.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he considered that the Amendment was unnecessary, as it was already provided in the clause that all duties to be undertaken by the police, in addition to their ordinary duties, should be such as were connected with the police.

MR. RICE

said, his objection to the clause was, that it limited the magistrates too strictly.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought the objection would be obviated by substituting the words, "such duties as justices of the peace may lawfully require them to perform."

MR. MILES

said, he hoped that the words would be retained. It was well known that if any great latitude were given, some duties would be thrown upon the police which would prevent them from performing their legitimate duties. The great mission of the police was to repress crime, which it was impossible for them to accomplish if they were to be turned into letter-carriers.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he thought the words might be very safely omitted, as their retention would in all probability lead to a great deal of dispute.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he did not think it very important whether the words were rejected or not, but he would rather have them retained; for he was much more apprehensive of the tendency to throw on the police duties unconnected with their office, than of the inconvenience likely to result from their not performing certain duties which it might be convenient for them to undertake.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought it would be better, on the whole, to retain the words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEADLAM

said, the clause enacted that the constables should, in addition to their ordinary duties, perform all such duties "connected with the police" as the justices in quarter sessions should require. He thought the words "connected with the police" were unnecessary, and should therefore move that they be omitted.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 73: Majority 4.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Constables shall not receive Fees).

MR. PRICE

said, he desired to move the addition of the following words to the clause:—"Or which may be payable to, or be applied in aid of, any police super-annuation fund established or to be established in any borough under the provisions of the Act 11 & 12 Vict., chap. 14."

MR. HARDY

said, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had stated on a former occasion that the superintendent of police at Leominster was paid by fees for the performance of what were essentially police duties, and that the police sergeants and other constables were not allowed to serve warrants or perform duties which would interfere with the perquisites of the chief officer of police. The right hon. Baronet must have made that statement upon misinformation, for the police of Leominster were paid by fixed salaries, the superintendent receiving £1 14s. a week, with a house and garden; the patrol sergeant 16s. a week, and the constables 15s. a week each; and in the absence of the superintendent the sergeants and other policemen were empowered to serve warrants and summonses, and to discharge similar duties.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had made the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred upon the authority of a printed copy of the police regulations for the borough of Leominster, which had been transmitted, under the Act of Parliament, to the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and under those regulations it appeared that the superintendent of police was entitled to receive certain perquisites.

In reply to Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY,

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, it would be competent, under this measure, for justices of the peace in counties, and for watch committees in boroughs, to reward constables for extraordinary exertions.

Motion agreed to; Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Borough Constables disqualified from voting at certain Elections.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he did not expect such a proposition would come from a Liberal Government, and as he saw no good reason for disfranchising borough constables, he would move the omission of the words "Or within six calendar months after he has ceased to be such constable be capable of giving his vote for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for such borough, or any county, in or to which such borough is situate, either wholly or in part, or adjoins, or for any borough within any such county, nor shall any such constable."

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he must explain that the words "within six months" were intended to prevent an evasion of the disqualification by a man ceasing to he constable one day, voting the next, and again becoming constable the day following.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he did not apprehend that any undue influence would be brought to bear upon the votes of the police constables. He thought that the police constable had as much right to their votes as any Cabinet Minister, or other person holding paid offices under the Government.

MR. PACKE

said, he should support the clause, because he could not but think that if the police were under any political bias great difficulties and disturbances might arise at those times when it was most necessary that they should be in a position to discharge their duties as guardians of the peace, free from any influence of political feelings.

MR. BIGGS

said, he must deny that it was the practice of borough corporations to appoint their police from political considerations. Any allegation of that kind could only originate in ignorance. Education, character, and physical strength were the only qualifications required for borough constables.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he wished to show from the evidence printed that the public-houses belonging to members of the Liverpool Watch Committee were rarely reported by the police for their irregularities, and that the inspection to which such places were subjected was inferior in stringency to that extended to other houses of entertainment.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that at least showed that in one case, other than legitimate considerations had to do with the appointment of constables—that Parliament had disqualified the metropolitan police from taking a part in elections, it being held necessary to remove from the arena of politics a body on whose firmness, forbearance, and impartiality in times of popular excitement the public peace so greatly depended. The same considerations were equally applicable to other constabulary. If the hon. Member for Liverpool objected to the entire clause, it would be useless then to discuss an Amendment on its mere wording.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he did not oppose the whole clause. He considered that the police should be debarred from influencing elections, but not from the exercise of their franchise. Moreover, in times of disturbance the special constables were called out, and yet they often consisted of voters.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he thought it desirable to prevent the possibility of police constables being mixed up in party politics. The question was whether the police should remain all blue as at present, or be divided into blue and yellow. He should like to see the clause extended to municipal as well as Parliamentary elections.

MR. CROSSLEY

said, he was glad to find Her Majesty's Government were about to extend the franchise, for it was impossible that police constables receiving 16s. and 18s. a week could live in houses of £10 a year. He should support the clause, for he thought it better that the police should not have a vote at elections.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he should be satisfied with disfranchising a police constable while in the force, but not to take away his vote for six months after he had ceased to be a constable.

MR. W. J. FOX

said, they might deprive policemen of their votes, but they could not prevent them taking an interest in political contests. They had opinions like other people, and the best way he thought was to give them a legitimate mode of expressing those opinions. They were a class of men eminently qualified to exercise the suffrage, and in answer to the suggestion that if they had votes they would be under sinister influence, he would observe that he hoped, before many years, to see adopted the practice of secret voting.

MR. BENTINCK

thought the hon. Member for Liverpool ought to show why the regulations in force in the county police were not also applicable to boroughs.

MR. WISE

thought it would be sufficient to disfranchise the police for two months after they had been in the force. He considered six months too long a period.

SIR SAMUEL BIGNOLD

said, that he had been requested, on behalf of the borough of Norwich, to support the clause, as being in accordance with the feelings of the police force. The Watch Committee of that borough selected the police without regard to political considerations, but when an election occurred they had not that free action which was desirable. It was the desire of the police themselves that they should have no votes at elections.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he thought the clause was the best one of the Bill, for he believed that the policemen themselves would be most thankful to the House for taking from them a privilege, the exercise of which would be in many cases most inconvenient to them.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, as he did not want to force the privilege upon the police if they did not wish to possess it.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, it would be desirable that the borough police should be left on the same footing as the county police in this respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he wished to move to add, in Clause 7, line 19, after "election." the words, "of any person to any municipal office in or." The object of the addition was to disqualify the voter from taking part in municipal as well as Parliamentary elections.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that though he was hostile to the practice of disfranchising classes, he must admit that the case of the police was exceptional, and as constables had been already rendered incapable of voting at Parliamentary elections, he could see no reason why the disqualification should not be extended to municipal elections also.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he wished to move the omission from the clause of the words by which it was sought to impose a fine of £20 on any constable who "by word, message, writing, or in any other manner should endeavour to persuade any elector to give, or dissuade any elector from giving, his vote for the choice of any person to be a member to serve in Parliament for any such borough or county."

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

, said, he was in favour of the Amendment, for he thought the clause as originally worded would by its undue severity defeat its own object.

MR. W. J. FOX

said, that, unless they put muzzles on the mouths and blinkers on the eyes of constables, it would be impossible to prevent those officers from giving utterance to what they thought, felt, and wished at elections.

MR. DEEDES

said, the words referred to were in the Act which constituted the county police. They were then well considered, and he saw no reason why they should be withdrawn with regard to the borough police.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he was in favour of the retention of the words, for the police ought not to be encouraged to mix themselves up in elections.

SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND

said, he thought those words were very severe, and carried our legislation further than it had ever yet gone. Surely, every man was entitled to think and discuss, as it pleased him, on any subject, and on any occasion. It was that freedom of judgment which had never yet been interfered with in this country.

MR. WATSON

said, he thought that it was of great importance to retain the words. They were intended to discourage partisan electioneering in the police, which might otherwise become a great abuse. He would recommend, however, a reduction of the penalty, from £20 to £5, because it would be found that magistrates would not convict of the offence if it were to involve such penalties. The Act would thereby become a dead letter.

MR. PACKE

said, he also concurred in the propriety of reducing the penalty.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from the word "County" to the end of the Clause.

Question put, "That the words 'nor shall any such Constable' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 139, Noes 18: Majority 121.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he would then move that the penalty should be reduced from £20 to "a sum not exceeding £5."

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the words "not exceeding" would not apply to this penalty, because, as it was recoverable by an action for debt, the sum must be absolutely fixed. He proposed to reduce the amount of the penalty to £10.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8: Justices of Counties may grant superannuation allowances to Chief Constables.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, it had been suggested to him by a superintendent that the chief constables would greatly prefer receiving their retiring allowances from a superannuation fund, in the same way as the other constables, to being made dependent upon the magistrates in the manner proposed by this clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that there ought to be some limit as to the number of years a chief constable should serve before receiving a superannuation allowance. He considered that ten years' service should be required to entitle to superannuation.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that by the operation of an existing Act fifteen years' service was the minimum entitling to a superannuation allowance in ordinary cases, but there might be peculiar circumstances entitling an officer to superannuation before that period of service. If a chief constable in the discharge of his duty met with an accident, he thought it might be safely left to the magistrates to decide whether he should have a superannuation allowance before the ordinary period.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9. Statement of Accounts shall be sent in annually to the Secretary of State.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would propose that as the borough accounts were to be sent in through the Watch Committee, so the county accounts should be sent in through the justices of the peace in quarter sessions assembled, instead of through the chief constable, as the clause at present provided. He would also suggest that Michaelmas would be a better time than January for making up the accounts.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would agree to both suggestions.

VISCOUNT DUNGARVAN

said, he wished to propose the insertion of words requiring the chief constable of every county and the Watch Committee of every borough to include in their annual Reports to the Home Secretary the names of the places to which information of the offences committed within their respective districts was sent. His object was to secure the establishment of an organized system of communication between the different police forces throughout the country.

MR. MASSEY

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be to encumber the Reports with a great variety of minute and wholly unnecessary details.

MR. MILES

said, he wished to inquire whether a printed form had been prepared at the Home Office for the entry of charges at the different police offices?

MR. MASSEY

replied, that a charge sheet had been drawn up at the Home Office and sent to the police authorities in boroughs; but he was sorry to say that little use had been made of it. A similar form would be supplied to counties.

Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT DUNGARYAN

said, he would now move the insertion of words compelling the police authorities in counties and boroughs to state in their annual Reports to the Home Office the name, age, and description of every superintendent or other constable appointed or discharged during the year. The object of the Amendment was the formation of a register to which chief constables and watch committees might refer when they wanted to fill up vacancies.

MR. MASSEY

said, that there were regulations in existence at the present moment which secured the object contemplated by the noble Lord.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he would suggest, in pursuance of a recommendation made to him by a chief constable, that the annual Reports should also include a list of the resignations, and the causes thereof.

Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.

Clause10 (Her Majesty may appoint Inspectors for inquiring into efficiency of Police, &c.)

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that no money should be granted for borough police, except on special application.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that where public money was paid and received, it was only fair and right to have security from the Government that it was properly expended. There could be no objection to a system of inspection, but it was desirable that an explanation should be given as to how the inspection was to be exercised and how far it was to be carried. An occasional inspection would, he thought, be quite sufficient, and being of that opinion he did not see that there would be anything like work enough to occupy the time and attention of three permanent inspectors.

MR. C. FORSTER

said, he objected to the police force being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He also objected to the inspection system, and should divide against the clause.

MR. RICE

said, he thought that many boroughs would be very glad to receive some assistance from the Municipal Fund. The Home Secretary was responsible for the peace of the kingdom, and it was only right that he should receive Reports from inspectors as to the efficiency or non-efficiency of the police throughout the country.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he considered that it was hardly possible to argue the Amendment without going into the whole question of the payment of inspectors, and it was not so much a question of inspection as of payment. He believed that the real principle of the Bill was to get the money with the view of getting the inspection; and he objected to any such mode of carrying a Bill through that House. It was wrong to use the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of tempting the Members for counties to adopt a measure which, but for that temptation, he did not believe they would ever agree to. The whole principle of the Bill depended upon the payment of the money out of the Consolidated Fund, and he hesitated not to say that in the matter of inspection he would have no mercy upon them who took the money, for if they took it they did so with the condition that those who declined to take the money ought to be exempt from inspection. He doubted very much the advisability of drawing upon the Consolidated Fund for local purposes merely. Those who required more police should pay for them without distributing the cost over the whole country. If local burdens were fairly imposed there ought not to be any demand on the Consolidated Fund; but an impression prevailed that those burdens were not fairly imposed, and that being the case, it might be necessary that the whole question of local taxation should be revised. The fact was, he feared the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was by this Bill opening up a very difficult question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer hereafter. The boroughs wished neither money nor inspection, and he believed that Portsmouth and Southampton were amongst the places which repudialed both. It was said that the Home Secretary was responsible for the public peace, and in that opinion he quite agreed; but he could not therefore understand why this general system of inspection was required. In conclusion, he begged to say that he objected altogether to a grant of money from the Consolidated Fund, and upon that ground should oppose the clause.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the £300,000 offered by the Bill to the counties was a bribe for its passing. Since the passing of the Corporation Bill, the boroughs had established a police of their own, and twenty-four out of fifty-two counties had established a rural police, and yet it had been proved that where this police existed there was no greater security to life and property. The House ought to set its face against the system of passing Bills by offering an apparent reduction in local taxation. This was the first step towards establishing a system of gensdarmerie throughout all England. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the system was already established in Ireland, and it would, in the end, be extended to England and Scotland. He should take the sense of the Committee on the next clause, which defined the amount of the grant.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the sole object of the Bill was to increase the efficiency of the police in boroughs and counties. He hoped, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his opposition to the clause, he would extend the principle he advocated, and apply it to the borough of Lambeth. There at present existed in many boroughs and counties an inefficient police; and he believed that the great obstacle to a more efficient system was the expense which it would impose upon the ratepayers. The change of the law, by which transportation had been abolished and imprisonment substituted, had entailed great expense on the counties, from which they had desired some relief. If the apprehension of offenders was a local affair, then the punishment of offenders was a local affair, which had long been paid out of the public revenue. The principle of the Bill was not a new one; it was involved in several Acts relating to the administration of justice. With regard to inspectors, he did not wish to appoint more inspectors than were necessary; and he should be happy to appoint two inspectors instead of three, but at the outset, there would be many inquiries to institute, which would require much time and trouble. It would be necessary to have a number sufficient to insure efficiency. The inspection, above all things, should not be a partial, but a general one.

MR. DEEDES

said, he begged to express his concurrence in the view which had been taken of this part of the measure by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). If inspectors were appointed, they would feel themselves obliged to do something for the money they received, and the consequence would be that the Government would have all sorts of conflicting Reports made to them. He, as a county Member, would reject every offer made by the Government for an advance of money by the public.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he was opposed to the clause. Why should there be inspectors when there was nothing that required to be inspected? Those gentlemen would always be finding fault with somebody, whether they had any cause or no cause. Why should the inhabitants of boroughs, who thoroughly understood their own business, be incumbered with inspectors? There must be some object which did not appear on the surface, otherwise the Government would not be so anxious to have inspectors.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it was a just and fair principle that districts which did not receive assistance from the public funds should be exempted from inspection; and that those districts which chose to receive grants from the Consolidated Fund should be subjected to inspection. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said he disapproved of inspection; and at that avowal he (Mr. Henley) was not surprised. It was well known that within the last few years proceedings had taken place in the Birmingham gaol which had attracted a great deal of public attention, and who had been the means of exposing the malpractices which existed in that establishment? Not Her Majesty's Inspectors of Prisons, but some of the inhabitants of Birmingham. He feared that a system of inspection would lead the people to relax their own vigilance with regard to matters of this kind, and to trust too implicitly to Government Inspectors, who sometimes required good spectacles. He approved the Amendment, which would leave boroughs at liberty to receive or refuse aid from the public funds.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he thought that the 11th clause was the one of the greatest importance, as it would inflict a great injustice upon the country, by compelling contributions from the Consolidated Fund. He would also press upon the attention of the Committee the immense amount of valuable property in the country which paid no taxes.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he would like to know what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the policy of adding continually to the charges upon the Consolidated Fund? He did not see why, when persons did not solicit aid from the public taxes, such assistance should be forced upon them. The population of Manchester had never asked for assistance from the public funds to defray their own local expenditure; but if the principle of affording such aid was established, he did not mean to say that they would wish to constitute an exception to the general rule. He believed, however, that they would prefer that counties and boroughs should be left to meet from their own resources the legitimate local expenditure of their respective districts. He should oppose the clause, because he thought it quite unnecessary to interfere with the police in boroughs. He asked for neither money nor inspection.

MR. BECKETT DENISON

said, he thought that the Government ought to contribute most liberally to the expense of the police, as they were now relieved from the expense of transportation; and that if they granted money they were assuredly entitled to have inspection. Boroughs wanted inspection quite as much as counties, and he saw no reason why boroughs should be exempted.

MR. W. J. FOX

said, he could not see the fairness of taxing the boroughs for the payment of police in rural districts, which would be the effect of paying them out of the Consolidated Fund. The boroughs objected to receive the public money, and preferred going without it. The borough police were responsible to the Watch Committee, and the Watch Committee were responsible to the ratepayers who elected them.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he not only condemned the clause, but he must also express, at the same time, his strong disapproval of the entire Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 22, to leave out the word "every," and insert the word "any."

Question put, "That the word 'every' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 116: Majority, 59.

Question put, "That Clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 100: Majority 99.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (One-fourth of the charge of the Police Establishment in Counties and Boroughs shall be defrayed by the Treasury).

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he objected to the provision which makes the payment in question contingent on a certificate from the Home Secretary attesting the efficiency of the force. The power proposed to be conferred on the Home Secretary was as arbitrary as unprecedented, and there was the less excuse for it, as it was not necessary for the better discipline of the police. He held that inspections and publicity would tend to make the police a most valuable and efficient body; but, at the same time, he believed that the value of that body would be seriously interfered with if the control of the charge was to be dependent upon the will of the Secretary of State. He believed that this was the first time it was ever proposed that the Secretary of State should step in between a Government grant and those who were to be benefited by it. Inspection and publicity acted beneficially with regard to prisons, and why should not the same principle be applied to the police. The certificate was only to be given in the event of the police being efficient; but it would be very hard because magistrates, or even Secretaries of State, neglected their duty in making the force efficient, that ratepayers should be called upon to pay one-fourth more than their neighbours. He should never consent to ratepayers suffering for what they were in no way responsible; and he should certainly divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, under the clause no assistance was to be given, unless on the assurance that the money would only be expended in rendering the police more efficient. The hon. Member's proposal was, that one-fourth of the expenditure should be paid by the Treasury in all cases irrespective of efficiency; but that would defeat the object of the clause, which was to induce the different boroughs and counties to put their police in a proper condition.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he believed that the ratepayers of the metropolis were quite ready to support their own police without any aid from the Consolidated Fund, provided the entire management of that force were placed in their hands.

MR. HILDYARD

said, the ratepayers, who had no power to prevent maladministration in the police, would yet be obliged to bear the whole expense when the Secretary of State withdrew the State allowance of one-fourth of the amount in consequence of an unfavourable Report being made concerning the police of the borough in question.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must beg to explain that the object of the clause was to enable Parliament to exercise a proper supervision over the application of its grants.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he did not think that this object would be best attained by the provision as it stood. He would agree that it was so as the right hon. Gentleman had described it; but upon looking at the authority under which the money was issued or withdrawn, he considered it too much to make the issue or non-issue of money dependent on the Report of a single inspector sent down to examine into the administration of the police of any borough. Ought not such a Report to be laid on the table of the House, and an opportunity given to the parties affected by it to answer the charges made in it before that Report was acted on? Surely some other means might be devised as a check upon the proper application of the money.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the clause was too important to be discussed at that late hour (ten minutes past twelve o'clock), and he would therefore, move that the Chairman should report progress.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would not press the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the clause that evening; but he could not consent to report progress without saying that he thought the laying upon the table of the House the Reports of the inspectors would be a sufficient check upon the Secretary of State, who would never refuse or withdraw a grant without previous communication with the persons interested. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe) could suggest the insertion in the clause of any words which would impose a more efficient check he should be happy to consider them.

House resumed.

Committee report progress.