§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Arthur Arnold, which appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette on the 11th instant, with reference to the insertion in the Hastings and Torquay Local Acts, by the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, of which Mr. Arnold was a member, of the clauses under which several persons have been committed to prison; whether it is correct that the Home Department objected to the insertion of these clauses; and, whether he will take steps to ensure that any alteration of the existing law affecting the liberty of the subject, proposed to be inserted in Private Bills, shall be brought under the consideration of the House before such Bills are passed?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)Yes, Sir; I have seen the letter referred to. It is true that the Home Office objected to the clause. As I have already stated in this House, by Standing Order 173a Committees of this House are required to bring clauses of this kind to the notice of the House by specially reporting on them. This Torquay Bill was reported on May 25, 1886, when the House had an opportunity of considering it. I will consult with the Authorities of the House as to whether any amendment of this Order is desirable, with the view of obtaining a more effectual fulfilment of its intention.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that this Committee was originally appointed under the Government of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) for the purpose of preventing those excessive powers from being inserted in the Acts; and that subsequently, on the Motion of Mr. Sclater-Booth (now Lord Basing), a Standing Order was introduced to compel the Home Office to report on the Bills? Would the Home Office bring 1189 this matter before the House, and prevent such a ridiculous measure passing into law? What course did the right hon. Gentleman intend to pursue?
§ MR. MATTHEWSreplied that the Home Office had objected on the ground that special legislation of this kind should not be introduced for a particular locality, and that if the thing was desirable at all it should be done by general legislation. The Home Office objected to the clause altogether; but the Bill was reported to the House by the Committee with a Reference to the objection of the Home Office. He should be willing to assist the House in forming a judgment, but he could not sea what the Home Office could have done.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether the Home Office, when it found out that the Committee was inserting a clause which it believed to be wrong, would take care that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter?
§ MR. MATTHEWSpresumed that a change could only be effected by a change of Standing Order. The Home Office considered it to be its duty to state its view to the Committee, but the objection had been overruled.