§
Resolution [14th November] reported.
That a sum, not exceeding £233,520, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Horse Patrol and Thames
1339
Police, and for the Salaries of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, and Receiver.
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved that the House disagree with the Resolution with respect to the sum of £3,300, being the salaries of the Chief Constables and Assistant Chief Constables of the Metropolitan Police. There were four Chief Constables, with a maximum salary of £800 each. He desired to be perfectly frank with the House, and not to lay upon the shoulders of Sir Charles Warren anything for which that officer was not responsible. He would remind the House that after the disturbance in Trafalgar Square in February, 1886, a Committee was appointed to consider whether the Metropolitan Police Force should be re-organized. That Committee recommended the appointment of four Chief Constables, each to be in charge of one-quarter of the Metropolitan area, and also made this further recommendation—that the persons selected should be men of good social position, who had seen service in the Army or Navy. Sir Charles Warren seemed to have been the moving spirit of the Committee, which included Sir James Ingham, the police magistrate, Mr. Pemberton, of the Home Office, and the right hon. Members for Bury (Sir Henry James) and Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). He knew he should be twitted with the last name; but he was sorry that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh had joined in that recommendation, and thought he was wrong. He agreed with every word that fell from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) yesterday, who had throughout been consistent on this point. Sir Charles Warren quickly acted upon the recommendation of the Committee, and appointed Colonel Monsell, Colonel Roberts, Major Gilbert, and Mr. Howard. We had a warning against the appointment of a military man as Chief Commissioner, because the Military Profession was clannish, and a soldier would be sure to appoint military men to fill subordinate offices. The appointment of these Chief Constables had been a great mistake. There were really no duties for them to perform. The Committee which sat in 1886 spoke of "the want of initiative among the Superintendents and In- 1340 spectors;" but the appointment of these officers between them and the Chief Commissioner was not calculated to increase their initiative and independence. Each Superintendent had 500 or 600 men under him. Their position ought to be strengthened, and one way of doing that would be to raise the maximum of their salaries and impose greater responsibility upon them—not to place them in the leading strings of military officers. Then there were two Assistant Commissioners, who had been recently appointed—one Captain Knowle, an officer of the Guards, who had been placed in charge of the instruction of police recruits, and Captain Deane, who had been in Bombay from 1881 until 1886 in a Lancer regiment, and who was appointed to the command of the mounted men of the Force. He had asked the Home Secretary at the time what experience these gentlemen had of police duties; and his reply had been that they had been in the Cavalry and Infantry respectively, as if military training gave men any knowledge of police duty. Of late the mounted police had achieved a very bad name, and they had more than once been charged, apparently upon very good ground, with riding men down. The time had come for a change in this régime, under which the mounted men of the police, with an ex-Lancer at their head, rode people down in the streets, and the Infantry police, instructed by an ex-officer of the Guards, batoned them. What the people of London desired was that their police should effectively detect crime, and that property should be at least as secure as in the last years of the administration of Sir Edmund Henderson.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)rose to speak, when——
§ MR. SPEAKERasked whether the hon. and gallant Member seconded the Amendment?
§ COMMANDER BETHELLNo, Sir.
§ MR. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)seconded the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£233,520," in order to insert "£230,220."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That '£233,520' stand part of the Resolution."
§ COMMANDER BETHELLdesired to consider the case of the resignation of 1341 Sir Charles Warren, and to approach it through the glasses of the late Chief Commissioner rather than those of the Home Secretary. He had no complaint whatever to make of anything the Home Secretary said in relation to that resignation, for he had spoken of Sir Charles Warren in proper and very high terms. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the resignation had been accepted because the Government thought it must be made clear that the ultimate power of the police rested in the hands of the Secretary of State. That, of course, meant that Sir Charles Warren had in some way questioned the fact of the superiority and headship of the Home Secretary. He wished to say emphatically, and ventured to challenge contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman, that Sir Charles Warren had not, in writing or verbally, at any time questioned in any way the superiority of the Home Secretary. Moreover, in the very article to which attention had been so much drawn he had stated in so many words that the police were undoubtedly subject to the Secretary of State. And here he ventured to ask the attention of the House to the letter and Memorandum read by the Home Secretary on Tuesday last. That Memorandum would be sent under a covering letter; and he wanted to ask the Home Secretary if he would be good enough in his reply to read the covering letter sent in 1879 to the Commissioner of Police? He did not mean to say that that covering letter contained anything of a particularly remarkable character; but he was inclined to think it might contain a definition of what the Memorandum actually meant. He had a strong suspicion that when the Home Secretary wrote the letter read in the House of Commons and referred to the Memorandum, he knew nothing whatever about the covering letter; and, what was more, he had an equally strong suspicion that Sir Charles Warren also knew nothing about it. If, however, the covering letter did contain such an interpretation as he had suggested, it would have had this effect upon the Correspondence—that, in the first place, the Home Secretary would never have written his letter to the Chief Commissioner couched in such severe terms; and that, in the second, a reply so sharp would not have been drawn from the Commissioner of Police; and that being 1342 so, although the explosion might or might not have been delayed, the article in Murray's Magazine would not have been the actual cause of the resignation.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)reminded the hon. and gallant Member that according to the Home Secretary himself this was not the first dispute.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that his hon. Friend was a little too much in a hurry. He would have occasion to refer to that presently. If the Home Secretary had not the covering letter, it was possible that he might be able to supply him with a copy. Passing to the subject of the Memorandum itself, he proposed at the outset to consider the relations between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Office, as viewed, as he understood it, by Sir Charles Warren. Those relations were, as was shown in the debate on Wednesday by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) governed by Statute. It was laid down by one Statute that the Commissioner was subject to the Secretary of State; but the important point was that the Commissioner of Police had power to make certain Rules and Regulations relating to the internal economy of the police, subject only to the approval of the Secretary of State; and the Statute, by an implication that could not be avoided, also said that the Commissioner, and no one but the Commissioner, had power to give orders to those who were beneath him. The Memorandum which the Commissioner was, by order of the Secretary of State, to make known to his men was illegal. The view of the Commissioner was that the Secretary of State had power to give directions to the Commissioner, but not to the men of the police. If the House would allow him, he would like to give a character sketch of Sir Charles Warren as he understood him. There were some men who undoubtedly did take an extraordinarily rigid and high view of the duty they had to perform. As soon as they believed they understood their duties, they would not, for any consideration, neglect or overstep what they believed to be the bounds of those duties, and in them they would not allow any other person to interfere. Hon. Gentlemen would have in their minds such a man as he was endeavouring to describe, and they might like or 1343 dislike such a character, and undoubtedly a character such as that did present some angularities and difficulties that did not exist in more pliant men. He should be disposed to say, from his private knowledge of Sir Charles Warren, that that description of a man rigidly careful of his duty not unfairly described the late Chief Commissioner. He would ask the House to consider the view such a man would take when a person invaded a province in which he believed that person had no right to interfere. In his opinion such a character was to be admired, and it was that of a man not to be hastily thrown aside. In his letter to the Home Secretary, Sir Charles Warren said he would not have accepted the post of Chief Commissioner if he had believed someone outside might interfere with his duty. Sir Charles Warren then went on to say that the duties of the Chief Commissioner were governed by Statute. He did not know whether he had made himself sufficiently clear to convey to the House a just and fair, though, possibly, a contentious view of Sir Charles Warren. The ostensible cause of the resignation of Sir Charles Warren was the article he had published in Murray's Magazine. [Mr. MATTHEWS: No.] He did not mean to say it was the real reason; but, at least, fault was found with Sir Charles Warren for writing that article. He wanted to know why that article was thought to be a greater dereliction of duty than other articles which Sir Charles Warren had thought fit to write to other magazines and to the papers? It was only two years ago when there was published in the Contemporary Review a very able article, dealing with the dog scare then raging in the Metropolis, in which Sir Charles Warren clearly showed what the duties of the Metropolitan Police were with reference to that condition of things. Was that article censured? Never a suggestion was made that the Chief Commissioner should not have written that article, yet it was in no way different from the article in Murray's Magazine in the respect complained of. Nor was any fault found with the articles and notices Sir Charles Warren had lately written with respect to the duties of the police in relation to the Whitechapel murders. If it was wrong of the Chief 1344 Commissioner to write the article in Murray's Magazine, surely it was wrong to write the other articles, every one of which was telling the public what were the duties of the Metropolitan Police. Hon. Gentlemen might not unnaturally say there was in the tone of his letter an unnecessary vigour and assertiveness. An hon. Member on the other side had interrupted him just now with the remark that that was not the first occasion on which Sir Charles Warren offered his resignation. That was undoubtedly the fact. They knew it because the Home Secretary had been good enough to tell them so. But the question was, what brought about those tenders of resignation? Why had the relations between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police been so disagreeable as that more than one proffer of resignation had been made by the Commissioner? A couple of years ago Sir Charles Warren, when holding a command at Suakin, was telegraphed for by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to come home at once to re-organize the Metropolitan Police. His services were considered so desirable that he was called home at once.
§ MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)No; he was offered the appointment of Chief Commissioner.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLAm I to understand that there was nothing but a bare offer?
§ MR. CHILDERSHe was offered the appointment of Chief Commissioner of Police by telegraph, he being at a considerable distance from this country.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLHe was invited to come back as quickly as might be in order to re-organize the police.
§ MR. CHILDERSHe was asked to come as quickly as possible, no doubt.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLAt least we may take it that the Government had a sufficiently high opinion of his services to invite him to come home and to undertake the re-organization of the police.
§ MR. CHILDERSNo; I wish to make myself quite clear. Sir Charles Warren was first asked by telegraph whether he would accept the office of Chief Commissioner of Police, and by telegraph he replied that he would; and then he was requested to come home immediately.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLThen the words "re-organization of the police" did not occur?
§ MR. CHILDERSI think not. It is difficult to say with certainty without referring to the telegrams. My impression—and it is pretty clear—is that he was requested to come home and take up the duties of Chief Commissioner of Police as quickly as he could.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to know best; but the point was not very important. At any rate, Sir Charles Warren was to come home and take the command of the police. In such circumstances it was natural to suppose that the Government of the day, and succeeding Governments, would, at any rate, pay great attention to any suggestion that he might make for the improvement of the police; and it would have struck anybody as an absurdity if it were suggested to them that Sir Charles Warren's proposals for alterations in the police would be submitted to or criticized, not alone by the Home Secretary, but by his own subordinate officials. [Murmurs.] Sir Charles Warren's proposals for alterations in the police had been submitted to, or, at any rate, criticized, not alone by the Home Secretary, but by his own subordinate officials. That was what he said; and he should be curious to hear whether the Home Secretary would contradict it. If that were so, he wanted to know how discipline could he maintained in any Force whatever? He invited the Home Secretary to consider, in replying to that, the letter of Sir Charles Warren, dated, he thought, March 9, 1887, and the letter of a similar character received in March. 1888. Many Gentlemen opposite, he knew, disliked the views of Sir Charles Warren about the discipline of the police; but he doubted whether any Member on either side of the House would assert that discipline of any sort could be maintained in any Force if the orders or the proposals of the commander of the corps were criticized behind his back by his own officials. He cared not whether the corps belonged to the Army, the Navy, or any other Force. He said that such a thing was absolutely destructive of all discipline. The right hon. Member for Derby yesterday, and in a speech in 1886, told the House 1346 what was the connection between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary; and on one occasion, he thought, the right hon. Gentleman said that connection was one entirely of a personal character. The expression which he thought the right hon. Member for Derby used yesterday was not loss strong and not less interesting—namely, that their relations "should be those of confidential colleagues." Then, in 1886, the right hon. Member for Derby spoke of the charges made about the permanent officials interfering between the Commissioner and the Secretary of State, and said that, in his opinion, it was absolutely untrue that permanent officials interfered in any way improperly between him and the Commissioner of Police. Now, he would ask the Home Secretary whether it was not true that complaint had been made to him by the Commissioner of Police, and substantiated in correspondence, that his officials, or some officials, had taken upon themselves to correspond with, and take sonic considerable part in the duty of, the Home Secretary in relation to the Commissioner generally under cover of the Home Secretary's signature, but he believed not always? Did he make his point clear? [Mr. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes.] Again, he said if that was true and not absolutely contradicted by the Home Secretary, when possibly a contradiction might be evoked elsewhere, he asked was it wonderful that there had been considerable friction between the Commissioner and the Home Secretary; and was it remarkable that such a slight thing as the publication of an article in a magazine should have brought about a resignation which had evidently been hanging over for some time? They had heard a great deal about the relations which existed between Sir Charles Warren and the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department. It had been asserted, not by the Home Secretary nor in that House, that the Criminal Investigation Department had suffered by the action of Sir Charles Warren. He believed that it was an undisputed fact that Sir Charles Warren did bring to the notice of the Home Secretary in correspondence some months ago this much—that the Criminal Investigation Department was suffering, was falling into confusion, because the 1347 head of that Department was not able to devote his time to his legitimate duties. And why? Because he was employed elsewhere by the Home Secretary, or by his authority. He invited the Home Secretary to contradict that statement if he wished to do so. That was all he proposed to say about the dispute between Sir Charles Warren and Mr. Monro; but he did wish that the assertion which he had made should be clearly understood. He had endeavoured, in the observations which he had made, to look at this question from a point of view which would, he believed, be occupied by Sir Charles Warren. Of course, they knew perfectly well that the Home Secretary occupied a different position. His object in intervening in the debate had been not exactly to apologize—he did not think apology was necessary—nor to defend Sir Charles Warren, but simply to state, as clearly as possible, some of the views which he believed were held by Sir Charles Warren, and to endeavour to soften some of the prejudices which had existed against him in consequence of the action he had taken with regard to the letters.
§ MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)said, that as his hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill), who initiated this debate, referred rather pointedly to him, he thought it was his duty to address the House at an early stage of the debate. Although he should not do so at any great length, he would endeavour to put right some few matters about which he did not think the hon. Gentleman had been absolutely correct; and he should also endeavour to put clearly the relation between the late Chief Commissioner of Police and himself. He apologized to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Bethell) for having interrupted him; but he was anxious that what really took place when Sir Charles Warren was appointed should be made perfectly clear. He did not think the word "organization," or "re-organization," occurred in the telegram which was sent to Sir Charles Warren. But it was not an important point, because undoubtedly all that did pass in the first telegram was an inquiry whether Sir Charles Warren would take the office. Sir Charles Warren replied that he would do so; and then it was possible—he stood corrected if he was wrong—that in the 1348 reply some such word might have been used. He said it was possible, because, as he should show to the House in a moment, the word "organization," or "re-organization," occurred more than once in the Report of the first Committee, which sat in the month of March, 1886, to consider the condition of the police. However, there was practically no difference between him and the hon. and gallant Member on that matter. Now, he thought he ought to state to the House very clearly with what view the appointment of Sir Charles Warren was made; and, in the first place, he must particularly refer to the idea which had been shadowed out that, in appointing Sir Charles Warren, he had in view some militarism in the Police Force. Sir Edmund Henderson was a very distinguished military officer, and, therefore, the appointment of one military officer to succeed another did not imply any change in the policy of the administration of the Force. He entirely agreed in every word on that subject which fell from his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) yesterday. His right hon. Friend spoke precisely his (Mr. Childers') view as well as his own, when he said that the police should be a civil force; that it should be governed upon civil principles, and not upon military principles. As to that there was no question whatever. They had not the least intention, in the appointment of Sir Charles Warren, of altering what was the well-known condition of the establishment of the police of this country; and he had always been one of those who, both in respect to the English police and especially in respect to the Irish police, had regretted the military tendencies, even in uniform and matters of that kind, which had been displayed within the last few years. Let him also state to the House, without mentioning names, that he found it extremely difficult, when Sir Edmund Henderson ceased to be Chief Commissioner, to select a successor to him who, in his (Mr. Childers') opinion, would be best suited to carry on the work of the police. A great number of applications were addressed to him, and he examined the claims both of a very large number of candidates for the post and of others to whom he might offer it. In the end the names were reduced to six, three of 1349 whom were officers either of the Army or of the Navy, and three civilians, so that the fact that Sir Charles Warren was the man chosen only resulted from the fact that he was one of the six best, three of whom were civilians. Now, he would like to say a word or two upon the question his hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill) had raised. After the occurrences in February, 1886, a Committee was appointed, under his (Mr. Childers') authority, to inquire into the origin and character of the disturbances which took place at that time, and into the conduct of the Police Authorities in respect thereto. That Committee consisted of five persons, including himself, four of whom were civilians, and one only a military officer. Therefore, there was no militarism in the inquiry which took place as to the conduct of the police. On that inquiry he had the assistance of the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), and the present Colonial Secretary (Lord Knutsford), and he had also the assistance of the noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire, who sat upon this side of the House (Lord Edward Cavendish), and also of Lord Wolseley. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) would confirm him in saying that, in the inquiry before the Committee, there was not the slightest tendency towards militarism. The Committee looked into the matter from the standpoint of the well-known organization of the police, and the recommendations they made were based upon its existing constitution, although they found a good many blots which they thought ought to be remedied. They mentioned in the Report the defective chain of responsibility, and that the duties and responsibilities of the superior officers were not well distributed, and that much ought to be done in that way. They found that there was a deficiency of officers of superior rank who had not risen from the ranks, and who had certain duties to perform which could not be as well performed by those who had risen from the ranks. They also called attention to the insufficient communication between the different branches of the police, and they dealt with a number of points which had come before them in evidence, and which showed that the police, as they then stood, were not organized satisfactorily. They made 1350 certain suggestions as to reforms to be effected, and they adopted an unanimous recommendation that the administration and organization of the Force should be the subject of further inquiry. That was the general purport of their Report. After that Report was made the new Chief Commissioner of Police was appointed, and the further inquiry was taken in hand. His hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill) had complained of the additional number of superior officers who were appointed upon the recommendation of the Report, and here he (Mr. Childers) wished to take fully the responsibility of having recommended that course to be taken. His hon. Friend said that too much militarism was to be found in the recommendations of the second Committee; that the Committee endeavoured to infuse into the organization of the police military officers in preference to civilians. If the House would refer to the Report of the Committee, he thought they would find that that was not the case. The Committee, like the former one, consisted of five persons, four of whom were civilians. The only military man of the Committee was Sir Charles Warren, and he had only very recently taken over his office. Everything which Sir Charles Warren said to them on that occasion was based upon very short experience, and, indeed, the Report was the civilians', rather than Sir Charles Warren's. On page 4 of the Report the Committee said that, for all local purposes, the Police Force was practically without superior officers; and they gave the reason why it was most important that the Force should have officers above the rank of Superintendents. There were two Assistant Commissioners in the Commissioners' Office; but the Committee found that between the Commissioners and the Superintendents, who were purely district officers, having purely local duty, there was no one who could carry out the orders of the First Commissioner, or who could make those inquiries without which the efficiency of the Force could not be insured. The Committee pointed out the defects in this respect. In the first place, they said there was no effective inspection of stations by superior officers. Of course, a Superintendent could not inspect his own station. Sir Charles Warren reported to them, from his own observa- 1351 tion, that many of the districts, because of the want of superior officers, had not been inspected for a very long time past, and that there was a great deal of inefficiency in consequence. In the second place, the Committee found that the want of a certain number of superior officers led to a vast amount of centralization. They were of opinion that the centralization of all the details of a Force like the Metropolitan Police was open to grave objections; and that, as far as possible, there should be an amount of authority left with the principal superior officers in the different districts. The Reports in respect to promotion came solely from those who had themselves been promoted from the lower ranks; and the Committee reported that it was absolutely necessary that between the Commissioners and the Superintendents there should be officers who should be able to advise on such an essential part of the administration of a great force as that of a satisfactory promotion. For these reasons the Committee came to the conclusion that it was necessary to introduce between the Commissioners and Superintendents officers of superior rank. The same recommendation had been made in 1879; but at that time it was only partially carried out. It was perfectly true that the Committee reported that the gentlemen who should hold these offices, called the offices of Chief Constables, should be gentlemen of good social standing; and the Committee's recommendation was that, as a general rule, they should be drawn from the ranks of the Army and Navy. But the Committee did not recommend that the appointments should be made exclusively from those ranks; and, as a matter of fact, those who were selected were not exclusively drawn from those ranks, although, as the House must know, for such offices the probability was that military or naval officers were the best men who could be chosen. That was the Report of the Committee of July, 1886. The Report was concluded after he left Office, but for it he took entire responsibility. He did not wish to shirk, in the slightest degree, the responsibility of having agreed to the Report, coming, as it did, from a civilian Committee, or what was almost exclusively a civilian Committee. He believed that that Report could be carried out in its entirety 1352 with great advantage. He, therefore, could not support the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill), that the Report would take them back to a system which had distinctly broken down. The recommendation made in 1879 was only partially carried out; but the Committee were satisfied that the recommendation was a very sound one. He was very sorry he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Bethell) in the view he had taken of the duty of the Chief Commissioner of Police with respect to obedience to the commands of the Secretary of State.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he had stated that the Chief Commissioner had never questioned the power or the superiority of the Secretary of State.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Home Secretary would be better able to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point than he (Mr. Childers) was; but he maintained that the doctrine contained in the letter of Sir Charles Warren, in reply to the letter of the Secretary of State, was a doctrine which would be fatal to proper control. He was sorry Sir Charles Warren had taken up such a position. He was one of those who, having had some knowledge of Sir Charles Warren's work, not only in this Department, but in other Departments—in civil as well as military matters—knew very well the high qualities and high character of that officer, and how greatly he had raised the efficiency of the police from the condition in which it had been. But it would be practically impossible for any Force to be carried on, under our Parliamentary system, with efficiency, if it was in the power of the Chief Commissioner to govern himself by the doctrine he put forth in his letter in reply to the Secretary of State. Such a doctrine was quite inconsistent with the principle upon which the Metropolitan Police Force had been conducted. He had only now again to say that neither in the selection of Sir Charles Warren, nor in the instructions given to Sir Charles Warren, nor in the two inquiries which were held, was there the least intention to depart from those principles of civil administration of the police, the carrying out of which was, in his judgment, essential to its efficiency. He repeated that he entirely concurred with what, on this point, his 1353 right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) said last night; and he felt certain, judging from the approval the Secretary of State exhibited of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, the Government were of the same opinion. Whoever might be selected for the office of Chief Commissioner of Police, he hoped the Home Secretary would not be too hurried in making that selection, for the appointment was probably the most important it was possible for a Minister to have to make at the present moment.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)said, he regretted a little that his hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bethell) had made the speech he had; for he himself desired—the connection of Sir Charles Warren with the Department having come to an end—to say nothing of him in the House but words of commendation for his past services. He should try to avoid saying a single word that would be disagreeable to Sir Charles Warren and his friends; but it would be necessary to say a few things which, if they were not so agreeable to Sir Charles Warren and his friends as what he said on the previous night, he must say it would not be his fault; the occasion was not of his seeking. He could not do better than take the points as they arose in the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend, premising—there was no use in disguising the fact—that his hon. and gallant Friend spoke as the mouthpiece of Sir Charles Warren, spoke in his name, and expressed his views. The first view was that the Secretary of State, when he issued the Minute of 1879—and here he felt his hands more free, for the Minute was that of his Predecessor—committed an illegal act. That was the position of his hon. and gallant Friend.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he would not specifically tie Sir Charles Warren to that; but it was his own view distinctly.
§ MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that was the theory of his hon. and gallant Friend, and constituted part of his case—first, that the Circular addressed to all the officers of the Department, and sent to many of them, including the Commissioner of Police, was illegal—that the Secretary of State had no power to issue such an Order; and, secondly, that that 1354 Circular was in some way qualified by the covering letter on which that Circular was transmitted to the various Departments. Such was the proposition; but to assert that the Minute of 1879 was ultra vires and illegal on the part of the Secretary of State was to assert a principle Her Majesty's Government could not admit, and which they regarded as so destructive of the whole constitutional position of the Police Force that they could not allow it to pass unquestioned for a moment. To say that members of the Police Force were to be free, without any check whatever, to carry on in newspaper or magazine, or through the machinery of the Press, publications relating to the Department without distinction—for if the right were conceded to the Chief Commissioner, it must he allowed to the Assistant Commissioner and other officers—to say this would be to say that the conduct of the police might be publicly discussed by police officers, the discussion ranging over various topics connected with administration—for instance, public meetings and the attitude of the police thereto, the manner in which the police should be handled, the duties the police had to discharge in relation to mobs; all such matters would become subjects of controversial publication, some taking one side, some another, the Assistant Commissioner differing from the Chief Commissioner, and so on through all the gradations of the Police Force. The doctrine of his hon. and gallant Friend was that the Secretary of State should stand by to witness this wordy war, powerless to control it, without power to stop the acrimonious criticism by one officer of another in reference to the conduct of a Public Department. Why, the very statement of such a proposition was enough; he repudiated it entirely, and emphatically protested against the doctrine that the Secretary of State had no right to issue the Circular of 1879 Then his hon. and gallant Friend said not only was the issue of the Circular illegal on the part of the Secretary of State, and might, therefore, be disregarded altogether—more than that, the Circular itself was qualified by some covering letter. He had seen that letter, and though he would not profess to have the precise terms of it correctly in his memory, it was a somewhat subtle 1355 point—rather legal than military—to suggest that this covering letter, written by a clerk—by a junior clerk probably—could modify a Minute or Order issued by the Secretary of State himself in the form of that Minute of 1879. But it was an untenable point; the letter could have no such effect. That he submitted confidently to the House. It was unworthy of his hon. and gallant Friend, and the cause he represented, to suppose that this covering formal letter could modify a Circular Order sent to the Commissioner of Police. Then his hon. and gallant Friend said—"Why did you draw this rusty weapon from the sheath; why revive the memory of this Minute of 1879 on account of the article in Murray's Magazine, when previous articles from the same pen were allowed to pass unnoticed?" To that he must frankly admit that he had not read the papers or magazines in which those articles appeared; he was totally unware that Sir Charles Warren had written on police administration in papers or magazines. His hon. and gallant Friend alluded to an article about dogs, and he said this had been passed over in silence. He confessed he did not know that the article referred to police administration; if it did he cried peccavi—certainly he was not aware of it. In reference to what his hon. and gallant Friend had said, he reminded the House that he had never uttered one syllable of censure of the article itself; what he ventured to censure was the setting at defiance the Order of the Secretary of State, which simply required that any publication of the kind should have the sanction of the Secretary of State. On the article itself he had not one word of censure. But his attention was called to this article in Murray's Magazine, not only by a good deal of rumour in the Press, but by a Question addressed to himself in the House. He was asked whether the publication of the article was in accordance with the Rules of the Home Office, and of the Civil Service generally. Of course, thus challenged, he could not do other than look at the article, not to see if he agreed with its drift, not to see if it was in consonance with his own opinions,—that was matter of indifference—he only looked to see if the article fell within the Home Office Rule. Upon that point no two men of sense 1356 could differ. Of course the article came within the Rule. It contained various suggestions in reference to police policy; it contained suggestions as to the future policy of County Councils, and their relations to the police. No doubt the article touched the highest questions of police administration, and came within the Rule. However valuable the article, however well-founded it was, that was not the point. The point was that a salaried official had publicly discussed in the article matters relating to the Department in which he was engaged, and therefore the Secretary of State could not do otherwise than draw the official's attention to the Rule. His hon. and gallant Friend complained that this was done in a somewhat severe and abrupt manner. [Commander BETHELL: No.] He should be extremely sorry if he had been guilty of abruptness or acerbity; but he must just say this much, which he hoped was no breach of confidence, that it must not be supposed that his letter of November 8 was the first or only communication from himself to Sir Charles Warren on this subject. He would allude no more to these earlier communications, but he was entitled to say there were less formal, less official communications respecting the Circular of 1879, before the writing of the official letter of which the House had heard the terms. Then the next point of his hon. and gallant Friend was that the answer of the Commissioner of Police to the communication from the Home Office in no way questioned or disputed the personal authority of the Secretary of State. But his hon. and gallant Friend could hardly have read that letter carefully. The Commissioner, after saying that the Secretary of State had no power to issue orders to the Police Force, went on to say—although he had received the letter containing the request of the Secretary of State that he would observe the Circular of 1879, the only request addressed to him—he answered that he entirely declined to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and again placed his resignation in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. If that was not setting at nought the authority of the Secretary of State on the subject, then he knew no form of words to express that. His hon. and gallant Friend was quite 1357 right; this was not an accidental or isolated expression. His hon. and gallant Friend saw much to admire in that character of firmness and independence that would not resign one jot or little of his own rights. He (Mr. Matthews) could not deny the admirable and courageous aspect a character of that sort presented; but, at the same time, it must be admitted a character in which that persistent assertion of right was a prominent feature did not lead to easy official intercourse. He thought he was not saying too much. He wished to measure his words most carefully; but the statement his hon. and gallant Friend challenged him to contradict was so closely connected with this matter, that he could not do better than go through it. His hon. and gallant Friend said with truth that Sir Charles Warren had complained that Home Office officials communicated with him tinder cover of the name of the Secretary of State. That was perfectly true; that was a matter of which Sir Charles Warren not only complained; but that with an acrimony that certainly embarrassed the conduct of the affairs of the Department. Here he might be allowed a word of explanation. Any Department such as the Home Office, through which a vast amount of business passed from day to day, business on a variety of subjects far more numerous than the Secretary of State could personally transact or dispose of, must act, in some cases, through the Under Secretary and the permanent officials. Confining himself to the Department of Police, he would undertake to say that since Sir Charles Warren had been Commissioner the number of communications coming from him had far exceeded by many times those received in former days, written communications of considerable length, making a variety of propositions, and asking for the orders or decisions of the Secretary of State. Every one of these communications required investigation and examination of various kinds, and it would be simply impossible for a Secretary of State to deal with them all. This was not only the case at the Home Office, but at the Colonial Office, the Indian Office, and in other Departments, and it was simply impossible for the head of the Office to conduct the whole of it himself. Important matters, 1358 of course, came before him for his consideration and decision, but minor matters must be disposed of by permanent officials.
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)rose to Order. Was not the right hon. Gentleman out of Order in standing with his back to the Chair?
§ MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was sure the Speaker would not suspect him of any want of respect to the Chair if he had inadvertently turned in speaking, so that he might be distinctly heard by his hon. and gallant Friend. He was saying that in every Department there must be a variety of matters that could not be decided by the Secretary of State personally, but must be left to minor officials. But it was perfectly true that Sir Charles Warren had, over and over again, raised the extraordinary contention that letters and communications that came to him signed by the Under Secretary of State had no binding effect upon him, and that he was entitled to disregard them as having no authority whatever. Well, his official experience had been short, but he believed that to allow a doctrine of that sort would make it impossible to conduct Public Business in any Department. The Under Secretary of State and the permanent officials had no power of their own, but they acted as deputies and representatives of the Secretary of State himself, and if every proceeding under their names was to be questioned, cavilled at, and disputed by those connected with the Department, why then the whole disposition and order of public life would become impossible. He regretted to have to dwell on these topics, but he had been challenged to say if there had been complaints of communications from Home Office officials. There had been complaints, and over and over again he had tried to dispose of them. Over and over again he had asserted the doctrine that the Under Secretary spoke in the name of the Secretary of State, and with his authority, but that assertion of his met with little acquiescence or response.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, his reference was to matters of material importance, not ordinary and minor matters.
§ MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was not in a position to speak with any great autho- 1359 rity of the practice of official life, for he was now to Office, but he was assured that the ordinary forms which were in existence before he or Sir Charles Warren was born, and had been used ever since, had been followed in all communications between the Home Office and subordinate departments. Those communications were sometimes signed by one of the permanent officials, and usually followed the form "I am directed by the Secretary of State," &c.; and for any official, however lofty his station, to assert that communications from permanent officials and Under Secretaries were impertinences, and might be disregarded by him, would be totally subversive of all discipline and order in the Public Service. Another point suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend was that Sir Charles Warren's plans for re-organization had been submitted to the criticism of his own subordinate officers, and now it was understood that that reference to a subordinate officer indicated the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police. That was a characteristic complaint, as illustrating what his hon. and gallant Friend called the causes of friction. The Receiver of the Metropolitan Police was by statute a perfectly independent official, not subordinate to the Chief Commissioner, but having his own Secretary and his independent functions. He was, as it were, Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to police finance, financial adviser to the Secretary of State, whose business it was to assist the Secretary of State to check and control—a difficult matter enough—the expenditure of the Metropolitan Police. All proposals of expenditure that proceeded from the executive branches of the force came under his consideration, and he was independent of everybody but the Secretary of State. That, he believed, was a perfectly sound view, and he only wished these matters could be dealt with by someone having a longer experience and more official knowledge than himself, but he believed the position was indisputable, and it represented a necessity of official life. But he regretted to say that this was a view Sir Charles Warren had persistently disputed and denied. It was not himself that instituted the practice—it was a matter of course, whenever any communication from the Commissioner of Police 1360 affected or caused expenditure, it had been invariably the practice of the Home Office to refer this communication to the Receiver. The business could not be conducted otherwise; he was the financial officer to check, economize, and control expenditure, and to prevent anything like extravagance and undue expenditure. He it was who had to correct any estimate, and through his hands all payments of salaries passed for all members of the force; and it was not only the right, but the duty, of the Secretary of State to refer all questions of expenditure to him. This was a doctrine nobody could dispute, or had disputed, until Sir Charles Warren disputed it, as he invariably did, and treated it as a matter of indignity and a grievance that his proposals should be submitted to the Receiver as a matter for that official's criticism and comment. It was also true—and it was almost saying the same thing in other words—that Sir Charles Warren had always insisted that in his position his relations with the Home Office were something like what the relations of a separated Ireland would be to the rest of the Empire, with one personal link, the Crown. Sir Charles Warren's view of his relations to the Home Office were of personal subordination to the authority of the Secretary of State when he spoke in his own name—not, it would seem, in regard to the Circular of 1879, not as to the publication of controversial matter in reference to the Department, but to some limited extent the Secretary of State might exercise personal authority, but the permanent officials had no right to speak. Against this idea he must protest. On one point alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend he could reassure him. He did not say that the Criminal Investigation Department had suffered by the action of Sir Charles Warren, nor, indeed, did he believe that the Criminal Investigation Department had suffered through anybody's action; he believed it was as good as ever it was. Sir Charles Warren, no doubt, in the matter of criminal investigation, as in other matters connected with the police, claimed to exercise, desired to exercise, began to exercise more immediate personal control than had ever been thought of by his predecessors, or by himself in the earlier days of his occupation of the position of Chief 1361 Commissioner. In that he was quite within his right. It was a department subject to his superintendence and control; he was responsible, and he was entitled to the fullest information and even interference. His (Mr. Matthews') position on that subject had always been in that sense and with that veiw, that the Commissioner might exercise to the full the authority that belonged to him. Having said that he would utter no word of criticism about it, nor had he done so. Having said thus much, he hoped he had satisfied his hon. and gallant Friend, and he hoped he need say no more in regard to observations that fell from him, some of which he much regretted. Only a few words more. So far as he knew—and he asserted it to the best of his belief—there had been no change whatever between the Home Office and the Department of Police since Sir Charles Warren took office. Exactly the same system, so far as he knew—and he only wished some older Secretary of State were present to confirm him—the same procedure, the same practice, the same form of communication, the same mode of administration, had been followed during the last two-and-a-half years as had been followed probably since the institution of the Department. He had taken special pains to inquire if there had been any modifications in the mode of communication, in the submission of proposals, in the manner in which letters were dealt with, signed, and answered; and he was assured that for long before he came into Office there had not been the slightest change. If, therefore, relations which were found peaceable and acceptable to every former Commissioner of Police, were not found acceptable, and did not tend towards peace, in more recent times, it was through no fault of his. He repeated, no change whatever had been made as regarded the relations between the Chief Commissioner and the Home Office; he had been treated as former Commissioners had been treated, and, so far as the Home Office was concerned, with exceptional consideration, inasmuch as a vast number of requisitions and requests proceeded from him. His activity was most admirable, and there was no branch of the Department that his active mind did not incessantly seek to improve. The 1362 amount of correspondence, the number of plans to be considered, sanctioned, or the reverse, was enormous; nor were there any proposals from him that did not ultimately prove acceptable. Having now dealt with the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend, and though he had said much he would have avoided, he hoped he had not given unnecessary offence or annoyance. One word to the hon. Member opposite, who was entirely mistaken if he supposed that the Assistant Commissioner went riding about as a sort of General Officer attended by a troop of dragoons whom he led to a charge upon the mob. This picture was completely the creation of the hon. Member's own fancy. The Assistant Commissioner never went out at the head of the mounted men. He had to deal with matters relating to the mounted part of the Force, with the supply of saddles and accoutrements, to see to remounts, that the horses bought were sound—in fact, he attended to matters of organization, for which, as a Cavalry officer, he was well qualified; but he had nothing to do with the conduct of the Force.
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)said, he thought the continuation of the debate had been of great public value, in that it had called forth a repudiation of that claim for independence for the Chief Commissioner which Sir Charles Warren had sought to establish. He was glad that the Home Secretary had repudiated that claim as warmly as any Member on that side of the House. But there had been no repudiation—and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had expressly declined to meet that point—of the sentiments expressed in the article in Murray's Magazine. Those sentiments might briefly be stated as follows:—That if the searched history down during the present century it would be found that down to 1886 the mob of London exercised a decided influence in London, and then, for the first time, lost it ascendancy in that year. The ridiculous character of such a statement ought to have been repudiated by the Home Secretary, and he should have protested against the idea enunciated throughout the article that the police ought not to be submitted to criticism. But he did net rise to continue that point of debate, but to ask once more for a reply to his statements in 1363 regard to the financial condition of the police of the Metropolis. He had stated—and had no intention again to substantiate the statement by details—that while in the last 10 tears the population of London had increased by 23 per cent, and the rateable value by 38 per cent, the cost of the police had increased by 44 per cent and their numbers by 34½ per cent, and were thus in advance of the highest figure of any other town in England. He had pointed out that, being limited by Statute, the police had always stuck like limpets to the 9d. rate; that expenditure had risen with the 9d. rate; and had gone ahead of the population and had come to this—that in 1887 the expenditure of the police had exceeded the revenue, while the 9d. rate was being levied as before. The total of the 9d. rate allowed by Act of Parliament amounted to £1,290,000 odd, and there were further sources of income, £176,000 from public and private bodies to whom services were rendered, and some £55,000 from various other sources of income, reaching a total of £1,521,719, while there had been an expenditure, striking out all items of expenditure of an extraordinary character in respect to buildings and other matters, of £1,542,812, an excess of expenditure over revenue of £20,000. Under such circumstances, while going to the full extent of the 9p. rate, the rising expenditure would necessitate passing another Act raising the 9d. rate to a higher sum. Upon those statements he asked for a reply. It was a very serious matter, that rise in police expenditure of 44 per cent in 10 years; and in making his request for information, or for correction if he was wrong, he said again that he could not see how the evil could be checked, except by giving the people who paid the money the right to exercise some control.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)said, the debate had opened their eyes to the difficulties the Home Office found in controlling the police. Those difficulties had been clearly disclosed in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). He (Mr. J. Rowlands) was glad his hon Friend had reiterated his opinion that the people of London should manage their own police, 1364 and the sooner the rest of the House of Commons came to that opinion the better would it be for London. Then, when the gentleman at the head of the Force happened to lose his head—as Sir Charles Warren, good officer though he was did—the County Council, with the full weight of popular opinion at its back, would soon teach him a wholesome lesson. But into that point of the discussion he did not desire to enter further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh, in his quotations from the Report of the Committee of two years ago, showed the failure of that Report and the source of present difficulties. The Report insisted that it was necessary to have some "superior persons" in certain positions. Here in was the great blot on our police administration, that whenever there was a responsible post to be filled, with a large salary attached, then those men who had gone through lower grades, mastering all details and profiting by long experience, were passed over in favour of some "superior person" to whom the superior salary was given, the claims of the man who by honest hard work had earned promotion being ignored. Against that system he strongly protested. It was a policy that had been carried out for a long time, but against it many Members would not cease to protest. The right hon. Gentleman had given reasons why he thought the appointment of four Chief Constables for London had been an advantage; but he (Mr. J. Rowlands) could only take practical experience of the relations of the police to the people of London as compared with what they were in years gone by, and thought the creation of four Chief Constables had been a great misfortune for London. The Superintendents of Police should have a much more responsible position, each having authority and responsibility within his own district; nor was it necessary to have any authority between himself and the Chief Commissioner. There would then be decentralization and sub-division, which the creation of four Chief Constables did not secure, but rather increased centralization. [Interruption.] To Provincial Gentlemen those matters might not be important; but to London Members, taking an interest in the welfare of their constituencies, it was of serious importance, and they would not divide until the 1365 subject was threshed out. Another point that required attention was the increase of the mounted police in London. In any part of the City the mounted patrol might be seen with his sword by his side. But why was he there? If a burglary, or any crime, was being committed, of what use was the mounted patrol for prevention or detection? If the City were in a state of siege he might be useful. These mounted men were not serviceable as a Civil Force—they were a kind of gendarmerie. What had been the result of their being employed to keep a crowd of people in order? A body of foot police could do it much more effectually. A London mob was usually good-natured; it was generally the fault of the police if it became otherwise. Anyone who had had experience of London crowds must have seen how the police gradually obtained control without conflict; but the moment a mounted man was put on duty he commenced turning his horse about—the crowd, the mob, the rabble, as they were sometimes called, became aggravated, and then such incidents as that which occurred the other night at Clerkenwell Green arose. From the best information he could obtain, it appeared to him that if there had been no mounted police there would have been no disturbance. It arose from the mounted police riding among the people, and one person was arrested whose only offence was trying to pick up another who had been thrown down. He was a resident in a respectable artizan neighbourhood; he was bailed out by a master man; and it was clear that the police on that occasion had not to deal with a lawless rabble, but with respectable artizans. But the action of the police was such as to excite distrust among these people, instead of their being regarded as guardians against crime and lawlessness. In the changes of organization the system of Chief Constables should be abolished, and also the system of mounted patrols, except so far as they might be useful in scattered suburbs. Unnecessary expense was entailed, with the result demonstrated by his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), in figures that demanded serious attention. If that attention there not given, then, when the time same to ask for a 10d. rate, it would be 1366 found that the people of London who had to pay were thoroughly alive to the exigencies of the case. He urged the Home Secretary seriously to take the matter in hand, with a view to the introduction of such changes in management as would bring back the old feelings between police and people as they existed in days gone by when the constable was not encouraged to live in barracks, when he lived among the people and had touch with the feeling among his neighbours, felt himself part of the popular system, and not set apart from the people among whom he performed his duty.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)said, he recognized the courageous and high-minded manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell) had defended his absent friend. Not very often were absent friends so defended. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member, that though he took an absolutely different view of Sir Charles Warren's public performances he had formed the same estimate of the late Chief Commissioner's private character. He had also to compassionate the Home Secretary on the difficult task he had had during the past year. He was not aware of the difficulties, or he would not have added his mite to them. He was not aware of the constant scenes of wrangle and dispute at the Home Office between the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner. He would not pause to ask whether Sir Charles Warren retired or not because he wrote an article on dogs; but he thought electors had to congratulate themselves on the fact that Sir Charles Warren was not appointed by a Conservative Government, but by a Liberal Government out of slavish panic that arose in London when a few windows were broken. The people of London might draw some information from that action of a Liberal Government who paraded as the friends of the poor, and on the first occasion when the poor assembled to cry for bread were the first to send over to Suakin for a soldier to put them down. He often wished the Galleries of the House were larger, in order that the people of the country, who were so very grateful to the Chiefs of the Liberal Party and elected them, might mark the difference between platform and Parliamentary 1367 utterances. In former debates, in reference to the conduct of the police and public meetings, he had endeavoured to obtain what he considered to be justice for the people of London; and, without disrespect to any Members of the Liberal Party, he ventured to suggest to some of the poorer electors of London that if they looked for justice or protection from the Chiefs of the Liberal Party they were, indeed, relying on a broken reed. In that matter the people could think a little for themselves; the Birmingham bourgeois Caucus had promulgated no ukase on London matters. It did not matter that a man was trampled down in London; he must be an Irishman before the Liberal Leaders would stand up for him. The sympathies and tears of a Liberal audience must be evoked, according to the Birmingham programme, over the deaths of two men at Mitchelstown; not a tear for the two poor men killed under almost precisely similar circumstances in London last year. It was a strange thing that the sympathies of the Leaders of the Party could only be evoked when capital was to be made out of them—[Laughter]—political capital he meant—such capital as would enable them to ride into Office upon some popular cry, to change places with hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the opposite Benches; but he could assure them that when the day did come to change places, when on the wave of popular opinion, as they would call it, they rode into Office they justly merited, in London the change would not be due to popular opinion, but from sheer weariness and the wish on the part of the people to change something that might be bad for something that, perhaps, was not much worse. As regarded the appointment of a General Officer to command the mounted men, he would draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that, in the many cases he had had to submit to him of collisions between the police and the people, he had not always charged the police with having been the aggressors, nor was it invariably on the mounted men he had endeavoured to fix the blame. He would not say they had invariably acted in a brutal and barbarous manner; but he would say that, on many occasions, men and horses were strangely out of control. In the occurrence at Clerkenwell Green on the 13th, a state of affairs existed 1368 among the mounted men not satisfactorily accounted for by the appointment of a Cavalry man to command them. He pressed his hon. Friends to go to a Division now and quickly, in order that the people might see the Liberal Party were in earnest about something.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 30: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 294.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in said Resolution."
§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)said, he thought they had some right to an explanation as to the financial aspect of the question put forward by his bon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart), that the ratio in the last 10 years of the cost of the police had increased more than double the increase of population.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)said, of course, engaged, as he had been, upon other Estimates, it was impossible for him to take up and deal with the figures and propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart). Though he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) could not adequately deal with the financial points raised, he could not accept the accuracy of the calculations and the inferences drawn therefrom. The hon. Member had proceeded on a fallacious method, taking the year 1887, comparing that year with a previous year, and concluding that there had been a steady increase during the intervening period. The year 1887 was an altogether exceptional year, and it was not fair to take it for comparison. A large influx of visitors to the Metropolis added largely to the labours of the Force and to police expenditure. There was the further addition of some £186,000 for the purchase money of a freehold site for the now Central Offices, in addition to the rent of present Offices. He admitted there had been some increase in expenditure on the upper ranks; but the proportion of higher officers barely exceeded that in Provincial Forces. He believed he could follow the hon. Member, if the opportunity were more favourable, through all the items, and show 1369 that an exceptionally unfavourable year had been chosen, upon which a fallacious argument had been founded.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was surprised that, after allowing a day for consideration of this important point, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department should plead that if he had had an opportunity of looking into the facts he could answer the figures. He denied that he had taken exceptional years for comparison—he had chosen fair average years from the Annual Returns. On those he had based his statement. In 1878 the total cost, excluding anything of an exceptional nature, cost of buildings, and so on, was £1,075,237. In 1887 it was £1,542,812, and upon the figures he gave he based his statement of the increase of expenditure beyond proportionate increase in population. The solid fact existed that, whereas the population in 10 years increased 23 per cent, the cost of the police had increased 44 per cent. The expenditure of the Metropolitan Police in each year from 1884 onward was as follows (taking round figures):—£1,340,000, £1,378,000, £1,440,000, £1,500,000, and £1,540,000. It was a significant thing that with the quinquennial valuation, up went police expenditure; they stuck to their 9d. rate like limpets. That came of giving the police a rate they were not responsible for raising. That the Government might have an opportunity of answering the statement he made in detail on a former occasion, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, he endorsed what his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Stuart) had said, and seconded the Motion he would have been prepared to move himself. With fulness and ability his hon. Friend stated his case, and again had repeated it in a condensed form, but the Government had not taken the trouble to make any reply. The plea that there had not been time was an argument in favour of Adjournment.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 116: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 295.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
1370§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, he would appeal to hon. Members to allow the Vote to be taken. Admitting there had been an increase, it was not one for which the present or the late Government were responsible; it had been the growth of many years; and, as he knew himself, was in consequence of communications and arguments addressed to the Home Office and to the Heads of the Metropolitan Police, as to the requirements of the Metropolis, and the strain which on particular occasions was placed upon the men employed. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that all the facts as bearing upon the financial question should be carefully examined by the Home Secretary, and no expenditure should be sanctioned that could not be justified to the House and the ratepayers.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, if he was to understand that the Government pledged itself to a thorough examination into the facts, he would be content.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)said, he appointed a Committee some months ago, one of whose functions was to review the whole financial position, the growth of expenditure, and to consider how far it had kept pace with the growing demands of London.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTagain rose.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member had exhausted his right to speak, and could only speak by indulgence.
§ MR. JAMES STUART, while disclaiming any intention to continue debate, asked the indulgence of the House, and proceeded, amid some cries of "Order!" to say it was clear that the Government had not studied the figures. He hoped, however, they would now take the subject into consideration. He brought no charge against the present Government; on the contrary, he attributed the state of things of which he complained to the administration of the police without popular control. That was the whole point of his remarks. Would the Home Secretary say if the Committee had commenced their work?
§ MR. MATTHEWSsaid, they had been sitting for some months.
§ MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he would press the matter no further.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.