Commons Sitting of 20 June 1890

QUESTIONS.

  AMERICAN CATTLE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the resolution passed on the 11th inst by the United States Senate, calling on the President to negotiate for securing the modification of the present rules regarding the importation of American cattle into the United Kingdom; and if Her Majesty's Government will, in the declared absence of any other commercial lever for the reduction of hostile tariffs, require that the modification by America of the proposed prohibitive duties upon the products of the United Kingdom shall be a condition precedent to any negotiations whatever?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUS-SON,): Restrictions upon the importation of cattle into the United Kingdom are based solely upon sanitary considerations, and have no regard to the fiscal system adopted by other countries.

  GROCERS' LICENCES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether grocers' licences are included in the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. Grocers' licences are not included.
  MAJOR RASCH: Are other off-licences included?
  MR. RITCHIE: No; there are no off-licences included in the Bill at all; but there are Amendments on the Paper asking the House to insert off-licences in the suspensory clauses of the Bill.

  THE UNITED STATES TARIFF BILL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  1474
  Foreign Affairs whether, by the Tariff Bill passed by the House of Representatives of the United States nemine con-tradicente, and only awaiting the confirmation of the Senate and President to come into force, it is proposed to increase the duties on Sheffield pocket knives to 100 per cent, ad valorem from 50 per cent, as now, on Sheffield razors to 75 per cent, ad valorem from 50 per cent., on Sheffield carving and cooks' knives to 70 per cent, ad valorem from 35 per cent, as now, on Sheffield table cutlery to 50 per cent, instead of 35 per cent, as now, on Sheffield scissors and shears to 45 per cent, instead of 35 per cent, as now, on Birmingham breech loading guns from 80 per cent, to 100 per cent, ad valorem; and if analogous prohibitive duties are placed by the Bill upon other productions of Great Britain, and notably of South Wales, Lancashire, Glasgow, and Belfast?
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: It is also posroped by the Tariff Bill to increase the duty on hops.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot say offhand whether it is proposed to alter the duty on hops. In reply to the question on the Paper, I stated, in answer to a somewhat similar question on the 6th of May, that
  "It appears to he intended in the new Tariff Rill, submitted to the House of Representatives of the United States, on the whole to increase the Import Duties on Sheffield cutlery and edged tools from 50 to 100 per cent., though in some classes of edged tools a decrease seems to be intended. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to judge what the amount of value will be."
  The duties on the productions of the other districts named in the question will also be increased; but as in certain instances the basis of duty—namely, from ad valorem to weight—is altered, it is not prudent to hazard an opinion what the rate of increase will really be, nor whether the new rates will be "prohibitive duties" We must, however, assume that the effect will be to enhance the existing duties.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice, in consequence of the answer of my right hon. Friend to this question, and also to my previous one, that as the American Tariff proposals will inflict great injury upon the trade of Sheffield and upon British traders and artisans in other

  1475
  parts of the country, I shall, if they are carried into operation, invite the House to consider, as soon as practicable, whether a free market should be longer given to the competing productions of a foreign State putting prohibitive duties upon British goods.

  THE TELEPHONE.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any decision has been arrived at as to the action to be taken in reference to the telephone; and, if so, whether he can state it to the House?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have to announce that the Government do not intend to give notice to purchase the undertakings of the telephone companies at the end of the first period of their licence, namely, the 31st of December next.

  LLANDILO LOCAL BOARD.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the Local Board of Llandilo, Carmarthenshire, in expending a sum of money in a manner which they are not by law authorised to expend it; whether, on the 12th of June, in reply to a communication on the subject, he stated that the Board had acted illegally in authorising such expenditure, and that the decision of the Auditor in allowing it could not be sustained in law; whether he declined to interfere with such unauthorised expenditure by the Board, and such illegal decision of the Auditor; and whether he will re-consider the matter with a view to compelling the Board to act legally, and to directing the Auditor to disallow the amount?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board received an appeal from two ratepayers of Llandilo against a decision of the District Auditor in allowing £3 18s. 4d. in the accounts of the Local Board for the year ending Lady Day, 1889, in respect of the lighting and repair of a clock in the tower of Llandilo Church. The clock in question, it appears, was presented to the town in commemoration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, and is stated to have been placed in the Church tower because it was
  1476
  regarded as the most suitable place for it. The Board, upon the appeal against the disallowance, decided that as the clock, although presented to the town, was not the property of the Local Board they had no statutory authority for the expenditure which they had incurred, and the Board informed the Local Board and the District Auditor accordingly. The Board, however, considered that the circumstances were not such as to require that the members of the Local Board who had authorised the payment should be called upon personally to refund the sums in question, and they therefore in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by the statute allowed the charge to remain in the accounts. The Board's decision applies only to the expenditure in the year ended Lady Day, 1889. If future expenditure of the kind is incurred and charged on the rates it can be objected to at the audit, and will no doubt be disallowed by the Auditor.

  MEETINGS IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the proclamation of the last Chief Commissioner of Police but one (Sir Charles Warren), relative to meetings in Trafalgar Square, still holds good after two years; if the police will receive orders to interfere with a meeting called in Trafalgar Square of Temperance Reformers, to discuss the Compensation Clauses; and if the Home Office will confer with the London County Council on this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: The Regulation issued by Sir C. Warren on the 18th of November, 1887, as to meetings in Trafalgar Square, still holds good, and I am advised that no re-issue is necessary. I have no information as to any intended meeting in the Square; but I must repeat what I stated in this House on the 15th of May, 1888, that until this Regulation is countermanded the duty of the police will be to prevent any public meeting being held in the Square, or in the adjacent thoroughfare.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of

  1477
  London are entirely opposed to the holding of meetings in Trafalgar Square?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; I believe that is so.

  WAR-OFFICE CONTRACTS-MATERIEL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the quality of the projectiles recently obtained from abroad, by reason of the lower foreign tender, was equal to that proposed to be supplied from Sheffield at a somewhat higher price; and in what way it was or will be tested to show that the £14 per projectile saved in cost was not lost in the material and the excellence of Sheffield manufacture?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The tests for armour-piercing projectiles are laid down by the Ordnance Committee, and are the same wherever the shells may be manufactured. The contract is placed with a firm of great reputation, and the proofs have been quite satisfactory.

  THE MILITIA,
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a considerable number of Militia battalions are still without musketry instructors; and, if so, what is the reason of the deficiency?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There are 31 vacancies for musketry instructors. Candidates for commissions in the Army are not allowed to take these appointments; and most of the present subalterns are thus debarred. On the other hand, captains, though eligible, do not care to give up their company duties, hence the deficiency. During training, however, there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable officers, either from the line or from other Militia battalions.

  PIRACY OF BRITISH COPYRIGHTS.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large quantity of American piracies of British copyright publications of engravings and etchings are being imported into this country, with the cognisance of Her Majesty's Customs, without any steps being taken to seize the same for their infringement of the Merchandise Marks
  1478
  Act, inasmuch as they bear no imprint showing where they were printed, in accordance with that Act; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to a trade which is highly injurious to the-interests of British Art?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Merchandise Marks Act does not require a statement of origin. The Commissioners, of Customs inform me that they have no-knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the question, but will be glad to make inquiry if specific information is laid before them.

  ENGINEER STUDENTS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the reason why the standard of qualification for the entry of engineer students was raised this year, and why, since the examination, that standard has been lowered to that of last year; and how many candidates attained the higher standard of qualification, and how many inferior candidates have been, or are to be, accepted below that standard?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The standard of qualification for the entry of engineer students was raised this year, because the advantages offered by the engineering branch of the Navy were such as to justify the Admiralty in believing that a more capable class than heretofore would compete. This expectation was justified in the main. This standard still remains in force; but, as I explained before, six candidates who came up to the previous standard were specially entered in order to complete the number of entries required for the year.

  CAPE COLONY.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the letter from the Foreign Office, dated the 12th February, 1889, addressed to the Colonial Office, with the enclosure therein referred to; also, Sir Hercules Robinson's Despatch to Lord Knutsford, dated the l5th April, 1889 (No. 270), with the enclosure to the said letter, being a Minute of the

  1479
  Prime Minister of the Cape, Sir Gordon Sprigg, addressed to the Governor of Cape Colony, and dated Cape Town, 9th April, 1889?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: These Papers form part of a correspondence, and cannot he given separately. It will be considered what Papers it is desirable to present to the House, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I can.

  H.M.S. EGERLA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Report of the investigation into the circumstances of the mutiny on board H.M.S. Egeria will be laid before the House?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Report of this inquiry has not yet been received at the Admiralty. It has never been customary to make such Reports public and there is no reason in the present instance to depart from that rule.

  THE COMPOSITORS OF THE SCOTTISH LEADER.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the alleged action of the Scottish Leader newspaper in forcibly removing, by the aid of the police, all the compositors who were members of the Trade Union (on the 26th May 1890); if they acted in their legal right in so doing; and if the terms of agreement, which the men were compelled to sign, have been brought to his notice; and, if so, do they constitute a violation of the Truck Act? In putting this question, I wish to make a brief explanation. I believe this is the first occasion in which such a question has been asked in this House. These men consider themselves to have been ill-treated, and they come to Parliament as a last resource in order to guide the public in the matter. The compositors in question were employed on the Scottish Leader newspaper in Edinburgh, and they were dismissed for joining a Trades Union—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a question.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Do I understand that I am at liberty to put my question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper is perfectly in order.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Then I beg to put it.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Scotch Office and by the Chief Inspector of Factories that they have no information as to the facts referred to. Inquiries will, however, be made by both Departments without delay.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Stevenson Road is itself the boundary between the English and German territories; whether the boundary is drawn with regard to the strategical requirements of any future railway or other means of communication connecting the Lakes Tanganyika and Nyassa; and whether there is already existing free transit for English goods across Damaraland; and, if not, whether, in view of the German extension permitted to the Zambesi, this matter will receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Stevenson Road itself is not to be the boundary. The boundary is certainly intended to be drawn so as to facilitate communication by railway or otherwise between the two Lakes. Transit across Damaraland is subject to local imposts and conditions, as in other territories where no special agreement to the contrary exists; but negotiations are still proceeding with reference to that quarter, and the matter will be borne in mind.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the principle laid down in the Agreement with Germany in reference to East Africa, "that the Hinterland belongs of right to the Power holding the Coast Line," will be applied to the Portuguese possessions in Africa in cases of dispute between Great Britain and Portugal?
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask whether the same principle is to be admitted by Germany as applicable to the territory running east-

  1481
  wards from Walfish Bay to the corner of Bechuanaland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is evident that the principle cannot be of universal application. Each case must be considered on its own merits.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the Government prepared to recommend the cession of some of the Channel Islands to Prance in return for concessions in respect of the Newfoundland Fisheries?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Heads of Agreement published in the Berlin Official Gazette, and reprinted in the Times of June 18th, represent the terms of Agreement with Germany so far as yet concluded: whether this Paper will be laid upon the Table of the House; and when other Papers relating to the negotiations with Germany as regards Africa, and as regards the proposed cession of Heligoland, will be circulated?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Either in translation or transcription the text of the publication in question does not appear to be quite accurate. Lord Salisbury's Despatch, which has been laid on the Table, represents the outline of the proposed Agreement as in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. That outline is in course of development, but the details are subject to modification. It is, therefore, inexpedient to present anything further until the Convention has been completed.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to present to Parliament Papers relating to the Agreement with Germany for the settlement of African questions before the Bill for the surrender of Heligoland is introduced; and, if so, when these Papers will be presented?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Papers relating to the Agreement will be presented to Parliament. I understand that it is intended to introduce the Bill for the cession of Heligoland in the House of Lords. The hon. Member's word surrender is inappropriate. The Papers cannot be completed until the negotiations are finished, but they will be presented as soon as possible.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the negotiations are likely to reach a point that will enable a Bill to be introduced?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot say whether it will be possible to introduce a Bill before the Convention is signed.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will take steps to ascertain whether the people of Heligoland are satisfied to become Germanised?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): We have ground for believing that the arrangements made will have removed the chief objections to the transfer; but we could hardly expect or wish that we or the Heligolanders should part without mutual regret.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will take steps to ascertain whether the people of Heligoland are satisfied to become Germanised?
  MR. W. H SMITH: We have ground for believing that the arrangements made will have removed the chief objections to the transfer; but we could hardly expect or wish that we or the Heligolanders should part without mutual regret.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether be seriously intends to desert the loyal minority in Heligoland?
  MR. OKELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before agreeing to the cession of Heligoland, Her Majesty's Government consulted the Naval Authorities on the actual or possible strategic value of the Island of Heligoland; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will do so before further proceeding with the proposed cession?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. O'KELLY: I am sorry I did not catch the drift of the answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury not give a more intelligible answer to my question as to whether the Naval Authorities have been consulted, or whether they will be consulted in the future?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry that the answer I gave was not intelligible to the hon. Member, It was a distinct affirmative to the question put—that the Government had consulted the Authorities before they came to a decision on this question.
  MR. O'KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Sir Andrew Clarke has publicly denounced the cession of Heligoland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Very likely, Sir; he has denounced a great many things.

  SAMOA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the recent Treaty has not yet been put into force at Samoa, and when it will be?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The necessary steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the other contracting Powers, but some time is required for making the local arrangements.

  THE CASE OF CHARLES JACKSON.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the case of Charles Jackson, formerly constable under the Metropolitan Board of Works, and dismissed for bringing certain accusations against the officials of the Board of Guardians of Wandsworth and Clapham?
  MR. RITCHIE: Several letters have been addressed to the Local Government Board by Charles Jackson. I have no information as to the circumstances under which he was dismissed from his employment under the Metropolitan Board of Works; but in the letters which have been received from him he makes no allegation that he was dismissed in consequence of bringing accusations against the officials of the Board of Guardians. He has been an inmate of the workhouse of the Wandsworth and Clapham Union, and has made certain complaints. Copies of his communications have been forwarded to the Guardians.

  CHINESE GAMBLING HOUSES IN HONG KONG.
  MR. GROTRIAN (Hull, E.): I beg to ask the" Under Secretary of State for
  1484
  the Colonies if he is aware that it is reported from Hong Kong that Chinese gambling houses are on the increase there; and, if so, whether the Government can adopt any means for their suppression?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): No Report on the subject appears to have reached the Colonial Office, but inquiry will be made.

  THE COUNTY COUNCILS AND THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inform the House how many County Councils have passed and forwarded to him resolutions in favour of the Compensation Clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, and how many resolutions condemning them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): So far as I can find—and a special eye has been kept on communications from County Councils in the mass of correspondence I have received—two County Councils have sent me resolutions against the so-called Compensation Clauses of the Local Taxation Bill, and one County Council, while expressing a general approval of the Local Taxation Bill, has declined to offer an opinion one way or another on the clauses to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman apply to Corporations as well as County Councils?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have answered the question on the Paper, which relates to County Councils.

  GRANTS FOR SCIENCE.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received remonstrances from the principal Educational Authorities and Managers of higher elementary schools in England and Scotland against Article 40 of the Science and Art Department, which excludes scholars in public elementary schools from being henceforward examined or earning grants in science;

  1485
  whether he has seen the statement of the National Association for the Promotion of Technical Education, which describes this circular "as one of the most serious blows which have been struck for some years at the development of scientific and technical education"; and whether, having regard to the feeling with which the circular has been received, he will cause it to be withdrawn?
  THE VICK PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HAET DYKE,): Representations have reached the Department that the effect of the circular in question will be detrimental to science instruction in many schools, and, although I am not prepared to endorse the language in which the circular has been described, I have already stated in answer to a question that this matter is under consideration, with a view to a serious modification of the Minute.

  NAVAL UNIFORM.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what alterations in Naval Officers' uniform have been sanctioned; and whether, for the convenience of officers, he will cause such to be made known without delay?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No alterations in the established uniform of Naval Officers have yet been sanctioned by the Admiralty. A Committee of Naval Officers, under the presidency of Admiral his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, is at present inquiring into the subject, but I cannot state when they will be ready to make their Report.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  ME. J. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the intention of the Treasury to secure uniformity as to the regulations with reference to leave and sick leave throughout the Civil Service, paragraph 9 of the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, will be made to apply to all clerks in the Second Division: and, if so, whether the annual holidays referred to in paragraph 8 of such Order in Council are to be subject to deductions for sick leave under Departmental regulations which were in force prior to the issue of the Order in Council?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Clause 9 applies to all clerks of the Second Division, and I think the terms of it are sufficiently clear to require no further interpretation.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN ENGLISH CONSUL.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the following statement in the Primiero de Saniero of 12th June, an Oporto daily newspaper, respecting a serious crime alleged to have been practised in Shiré by the English Consul: (translation)
  "Persons who have arrived by the African Packet, which also brought the protest of the Governor of Quillimane, confirm the facts. One of the two Sepoys was shot against a tree. The other was beaten to death with sticks at Chicomo, where Consul Buchanan had recently hoisted the English flag…. The two Sepoys had been sent on a mission to Inhacuana Lundo by Jose Cardero, Governor of Alassangire…The two Sepoys were made prisoners when crossing the river, and were murdered;"
  and whether he has received any information in respect to this transaction; and, if so, will he communicate it to the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The latest Despatches from the Acting Consul mention no such occurrences, but inquiries are being made.

  "SHARP V. WAKEFIELD."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I had intended to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table, as Parliamentary Papers, the following documents in connection with the licensing case of "Sharps.V. Wakefield;" the statement of the case, and the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal? but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone it.

  THE RUNNING DOWN OF THE OSPREY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether lie will instruct the Public Prosecutor to act, in reference to the verdict of manslaughter returned by the Coroner's Jury, 9th June, in the case of the running down of the smack Osprey by the steamship Henry Morton?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Director of Public Prosecutions undertook the prosecution in the Osprey case on the 13th inst., and procured the committal of the defendant for trial on a charge of manslaughter on the 18th inst., and will conduct the case at the ensuing Maidstone Assizes.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether General Sankey, in his recent visit to Donegal to decide on the fittest route for a light railway in North West Donegal, was officially accompanied and advised by a Mr. Edmund Murphy, J.P., an official of the Board of Works; whether he is aware that Mr. Murphy is a Grand Juror of County Donegal, and in that capacity took a prominent part at the last Assizes in advocating one of the competing lines proposed for that district; and whether, though himself an official of the Board of Works, he was one of a deputation that waited on the Board of Works in connection with this railway line; whether, as a matter of fact, the line advocated by Mr. Murphy, and presumably recommended by him to General Sankey, meets with general opposition from the people of North West Donegal; and whether he has sanctioned the practice of officials of the Board of Works taking part officially in securing the adoption of a line of railway in which they are personally interested; and, if not, whether he will convey an expression of his opinion to the Board of Works for the guidance of their officials?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that General Sankey at Easter paid a visit to Donegal for the purpose of informing himself as to the best route. He was accompanied by Mr. Murphy, but there was no official character attached to the visit. I am not able to enter into details with regard to the question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question, whether he has sanctioned the practice of officials of the Board of Works taking part officially in securing the adoption of a line of railway in which they are personally interested?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir. I have neither sanctioned it nor said anything about it. I am not aware, as a matter of fact, whether Mr. Murphy is an offi-
  1488
  cial of the Board of Works. I take it that it was the duty of General Sankey to avail himself of the resources or knowledge of anyone who was capable of giving him information.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman says he is not aware whether Mr. Murphy is an official of the Board of Works or not. I regret that that answer will render it necessary that the question should be repeated, because the crucial point is whether Mr. Murphy was-an official or not.
  MR. JACKSON: In my judgment it does not affect the question at all.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any further information as to the cause of the delay in granting the sum of £116,000, recommended so strongly by the Light Railway Commissioners, and approved of unanimously by the Grand Jury of County Donegal at the last Spring Assizes, in favour of the Stranorlar and Glenties line; whether it is a fact that no opposition to the proposed line has been received from any quarter; and whether, in view of the-Board of Works' Report—
  "That the merits of the proposed Light Railway were superior from all points of view as compared with any other Light Railway which might he constructed opening up communication through the same district as the proposed line,"
  the works will be proceeded with without delay?
  MR. JACKSON: I regret that I am not in a position at the present moment to make any statement in regard to this line. Any declaration of the decision of the Treasury might seriously prejudice the negotiations now going on.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how soon the Government will be able to approach the question?
  MR. JACKSON: I hope the House will be content for the present with the answer I have given. Negotiations are going on with regard to these lines, and I am doing the best I can to bring about a satisfactory arrangement, so that I may be able to make an announcement to the House. I can assure the hon. and learned Member and the House that, as far as I am concerned, no unnecessary delay will take place. I am endeavouring to make arrangements that will be to

  1489
  the interest of the counties through which these lines will pass.
  MR. T. M. HBALY: Is it not the fact that all the arrangements have been before the Treasury for a period of six months? I do not say whether the time has been too long or too short; but they hare been under consideration for a considerable period. May I hope that before the end of the Session, or before the Irish Estimates are brought on—which may not be until December—the arrangements will be completed?
  MR. JACKSON: There will be no delay on my part.
  MR. COX: Does not this line run through a large portion of an estate that is merely waste land, but for which the owner asks for compensation?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the final arrangements in regard to these lines be made before the matter is brought before the House? If so, what use will there be in bringing the matter before the House at all?
  MR. JACKSON: I hope that final arrangements will be made shortly, but it will be very difficult to make them unless the Government assume the entire responsibility.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury are prepared to sanction the grant recommended by the Board of Works for the construction of the Baltimore Extension Light Railway, and what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the undertaking which passed the Grand Jury of the County of Cork at the Summer Assizes last year?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to state that negotiations are going on which he hopes will result in the making of the railway.

  POOR'S RATE IN LONDONDERRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of Poor's Rate duo in respect of holdings valued under £4 5s., for which the immediate lessors are liable under 1 and 2 Vic. c. 56, in the Union of Londonderry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Local Government Board are informed by the Clerk of the Londonderry Union that the total amount of Poor's Rate due by immediate lessors in respect of holdings in the Union valued at and under £4 per annum is £13 14s. 5d.

  POLICE SHADOWING IN IRELAND.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Malone, cattle buyer for a Glasgow firm of salesmasters, has been systematically followed by policemen when attending to his busines at fairs in the County Clare; whether he will state the reason for this proceeding; and if Mr. Malone's claim for compensation in consequence of loss incurred by reason of this police shadowing will receive the favourable consideration of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: John Malone was watched at certain fairs because there was reason to believe that he was a boycotting agent. I am not aware, nor do I believe, that he was prevented from doing any legitimate business.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman act on the principle that because a man is suspected of ruining other people's business his own business ought to be ruined also?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have explained that I do not believe this man's business has been ruined.
  MR. SEXTON: May I repeat a question which I put the other day? Is a permanent record kept to justify a responsible authority in ordering a particular individual to be shadowed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that there are records kept in all cases of shadowing, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question on the Paper?

  CASTLEBLANEY UNION.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of Poor's Rate due by the immediate lessors in respect of holdings valued at £4 and under in the Union of Castleblaney?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are informed by the Clerk of the Castleblaney Union that at present only one immediate lessor in the Union owes Poor's Rate in respect of holdings valued at and under £4 per annum, the amount due being £4 6s. 1d. Payment has been promised.
  MR. BLANE: As the holding is so very small will the Local Government Board insist on payment being made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question.

  LAND COMMISSION—ROSCOMMON COUNTY.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether complaints have reached him that, although Mr. Stephen Connor, of Daughloon, Strokestown Union, County Roscommon, served his landlord, Mr. J. H. Mahon, with, a notice to have a fair rent fixed on the 11th October, 1887, no hearing of the case has yet been had?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the facts are substantially as stated. The application, however, is being inserted in the list for hearing at Strokestown on the 24th July.

  PPOINTMENT OF CATHOLIC MAGISTRATES IN IRELAND.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Vice Lieutenant of County Tyrone has rejected the prayer of a Memorial, very extensively signed by the principal inhabitants of Dromore and vicinity, asking for the appointment of Mr. P. M'Laughlin to the Commission of the Peace; if the refusal to appoint Mr. M'Laughlin is due to the fact that he is a Catholic; if, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor has appointed an additional Protestant (Mr. Frederick Guy) to the Dromore Bench of Magistrates, although it has been recently brought to his notice that there are already nine Protestant and only one Catholic Magistrate in the district; and if he is aware that the Catholic population in the district largely preponderates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that a Memorial in favour of the appointment to the Magistracy of the County Tyrone of Mr. M'Laughlin, a farmer
  1492
  residing in the Dromore District, was presented to the Vice Lieutenant of the County, and was not acceded to, but the refusal to appoint Mr. M'Laughlin was not on the ground of his religion, as tin; Vice Lieutenant is always glad to recommend Roman Catholics when properly qualified persons of that religious denomination are brought to his notice. The Vice Lieutenant, in recommending the appointment of Mr. Frederick Andrew Guy (who is a Presbyterian), informed the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Guy was recommended to him by persons-of every religion and class in the district, and that, having inquired into his qualifications, he found him to be well-fitted to be a Magistrate. I have no information as to the relative proportion of the several religious denominations in the district.
  MR. M'CARTAN: What are the grounds of the refusal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say: it is a matter which rests in the discretion of the Vice Lieutenant.
  MR. M. KENNY: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question again.

  MR. WELDON, J.P.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the case of J. Weldon, J.P., Ashill, Kilmallock, County Limerick, who assaulted a cattle dealer from Tipperary, at Knocklong Fair, in October last, and in whose case, at the last Spring Assizes in Limerick, a Jury awarded to the said cattle dealer a sum of £50 and costs, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to the conduct of Mr. Weldon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the Lord Chancellor has considered this case, and taking the circumstances into account sees no reason for further action.
  MR. SEXTON: What were the circumstances which, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, induced him to treat this case of assault lightly?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not my duty to explain, but I believe it was-found that the facts of the case were of a very trivial nature.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was not Mr. White, of Glengaruff, removed from the Commission of the Peace when he assaulted a man in the same way

  1493
  although it was only a case of debtor and creditor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact that it was a case of debtor and creditor may have made the circumstances more important.

  BOYCOTTING.
  MR. PLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the prosecution of Patrick Keefe, William Kent, Thomas Kent, George Mulcahy, John Tuohy, Pat Walsh, John Donovan, and James Donovan, of Coolagowan, Cork, on a charge of boycotting, whether he is aware that a large number of prosecutions and imprisonments (including that of Father O'Dwyer and a number of respectable farmers in the locality) have already taken place in connection with charges arising out of the alleged taking of this same farm at Towermore; and whether it is open to Mr. Robert Browne, the present holder of this farm, to bring these prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act; and, if so, why have the Local Constabulary Authorities gone to the expense and trouble of instituting this large number of prosecutions when it lay within the power of the private individual concerned to move in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that there were three previous prosecutions in connection with offences committed in consequence of the farm having been taken by a new tenant. The boycotting conspiracy in this case was so determined, and its results were so serious, as to affect in a most prejudicial manner the peace of the whole district, and was carried on so generally as to be even introduced into the Roman Catholic Chapel, where, for over two months, the most disgraceful scenes were enacted Sunday after Sunday. It is open to any person to prosecute for any offence committed against himself. But in prosecutions for criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, and all prosecutions where the general public peace is involved, the prosecutions are invariably instituted by the Crown.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 20 persons, including a Roman Catholic priest, have suffered terms of imprison-
  1494
  ment for refusing to work with or deal with particular individuals?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that question.

  LAND COMMISSION-VALUERS' REPORTS.
  MR. M. HFALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will state what the present practice of the Irish Land Commission is as regards obtaining the Report of an official valuer on the hearing of fair rent appeals; whether such Report is now obtained by the Land Commission on their own Motion in all or in any, and, if so, in what cases, and at whose expense; and whether either of the litigant parties can, on application, cause such a Report to be procured on payment of any fee or without payment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Land Commissioners report that in appeal cases where the appellant has stated that the appeal is brought merely with reference to the holding for the purposes of rent, the Land Commissioners, so far as is possible, direct valuations to be made by the Appeal Court valuers prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Commissioners obtain each valuation on their own motion, and in such cases and for such sittings as they consider most desirable. The valuations are obtained without expense to the parties. When obtained, the result is forthwith communicated to the appellant free of charge. Either party can obtain a detailed copy of the Valuer's Report for Is. The valuer communicates the date of his intended inspection to both landlord and tenant. Both prior to, and at the hearing, if either party makes it manifest to the Commissioners that, special circumstances exist which render a valuation desirable, the Commissioners, when it is possible to do so, order a valuation to be made.
  MR. M. HEALY: Do I understand that there has been a violation of the Act in all cases where a valuer has been employed?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; where a question of value arises, the Commissioners have power to appoint a valuer. It is not absolutely imperative.

  POSTAL ACCOMMODATION IN GALWAY BAY.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a population of over 4,000 people, inhabiting a group of islands at the mouth of Galway Bay, are altogether unprovided with postal accommodation, the group including the islands of Garamna, Littermullen, and Littermore, with other smaller islands; whether he is aware that among the inhabitants of these islands are two Roman Catholic Clergymen, two Poor Law Guardians, 11 National School Teachers, and a considerable number of shopkeepers and other residents, who feel it a great hardship in having no postal communication with the mainland; and, whether in view of the fact that the cost to the Government of a three day service, with which the people would be satisfied (including an office on one of the islands), would only be £12 16s. a year, while smaller communities in the immediate neighbourhood are provided with a daily post at more than quadruple the amount, he will consider the possibility of granting the request for this postal service?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to be able to state that I have sanctioned the establishment of a post three days a week from Carraroe to Tiernee, an arrangement which I understand will be acceptable to the inhabitants of the islands referred to by the hon. Member.

  CASE OF MR. H. D. FISHER, MUNSTER EXPRESS.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. H. D. Fisher, of Waterford, has been imprisoned for the publication of reports of National League meetings in the Munster Express, although it was proved at the trial that he did not sign the certificate of registration as publisher, and no evidence was given that he was the editor or publisher of that newspaper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that, notwithstanding the circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member, ample evidence was produced that Mr. Fisher
  1496
  was printer and publisher of the newspaper mentioned.
  MR. SEXTON: Was there evidence forthcoming that Mr. Fisher signed the certificate? Will he indicate what the nature of the evidence was which fixed him with the responsibility?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No Sir; I cannot. If there is any doubt as to the legality of the conviction, it is possible for the person aggrieved to obtain a remedy.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Was the charge against Mr. Fisher that he had published reports of branches of the Irish National League which had not been attempted to be suppressed by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman requires details, I must ask him to put the question on the Paper, but I have no doubt that the reports were of a criminal nature.

  THE BALLYMENA GUARDIANS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Belfast News Letter of the 17th instant, of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Board of Guardians at Ballymena, County Antrim; and whether, considering the serious charges preferred against the master and other officials of the workhouse there, he will direct a sworn inquiry to be held for the purpose of investigating these charges?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board inform me that they had this matter before them, and that, in accordance with their usual practice, they purpose in the first instance to forward to the master and matron a copy of the complaints made against them, and to require them to furnish an explanation in writing. The Board will then be in a position to determine whether a sworn inquiry should be held.

  THE LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application for advances up to the end of March last, under the Land. Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1888, amounted to £8,708,808; for what sum applications have been lodged between

  1497
  the end of March and 15th June; and, if the average of applications per month be maintained, at what date the funds at the disposal of the Land Commission would be exhausted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the applications under the Land Purchase Acts to the end of March last amounted to £8,708,808. The amount of advances applied for between the end of March and the 16th of June, inclusive, was £257,356. The total amount of advances applied for to the 16th of June, 1890, was £8,966,164, from which is to be deducted for applications refused £930,571. This leaves a balance of £1,964,407 available for future applications. Assuming that the amounts sanctioned will continue per month at the average of the past, which, however, must be mere conjecture, the funds in question at the disposal of the Land Commission would be exhausted in about 14 months.

  THE ACCIDENT TO THE CITY OF ROME.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the City of Rome having struck the Fastnet Rock on Sunday, 8th June, about 5 a.m., whether, although daylight, the lamp of the light house was alight; and whether it was only after the vessel struck that the guncotton fog signalling apparatus on the rock was put into operation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade have directed an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending this casualty. Until the Report of the Court has been received I am unable to express any opinion in the matter.

  CASE OF MR. M'ENERY.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, on the occasion of a professional visit by Mr. O'Meara, solicitor, to Mr. M'Enery in Tullamore Gaol last week, Mr. O'Meara was compelled to hold his interview in an open corridor, and in the presence of a warder; and whether, on return to his cell, Mr. M'Enery was subjected to a searching of his person?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Governor of the prison reports that the interview was held in the usual place and in the usual way. There was no departure from the usual practice, nor was any objection taken at the time.
  MR. MACNEILL: How is it that Mr. M'Enery is unable to have an interview with his professional adviser except in the presence of a warder, whereas, in another case, Mr. Shannon, for the Times, was able to see prisoners alone?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Speaking from recollection I do not think the hon. Gentleman has stated the facts correctly, but I have answered the question on the Paper.
  MR. MACNEILL: Perhaps the Home Secretary will say what the practice is in England.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That ought to be made the subject of a specific question.

  THE POTATO BLIGHT.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the potato blight has appeared in the South of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Government intend taking any action in connection with it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no report on the subject, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put down the question for another day.

  IRISH POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will dismiss any Post Office official or employé in Ireland who joins the Postmen's Union?
  MR. RAIKES: No postman in England has been dismissed on the grounds suggested by the hon. Baronet, and I certainly shall not follow a different practice in Ireland from that prevailing in England.

  THE LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg' to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the wide-spread demand among the leaseholders of Ireland in favour of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill, and of the postponement of

  1499
  the Land Purchase Bill, he will afford facilities for the passage of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill into law this Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; apart from other objections I think a conclusive objection is the present state of public: business.

  EDUCATIONAL INSPECTORS.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any rule of the Commissioners of National Education compelling District Inspectors, when examining for results, to mark the answers of the pupils secretly, so as to prevent either teacher or pupils from observing the marks recorded for each pupil in each specific subject; and whether, if there be no such rule, he is prepared to represent to the Commissioners of National Education the advisability of issuing general instructions to their Inspectors to have the marks recorded in the marking paper in presence of the teacher and pupils, as a guarantee of the good faith and impartiality of their marking?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that there is no such rule as that indicated in the question. The marks of the oral portion of the examination are recorded in the marking paper in the schoolroom as the examination proceeds, and, as a rule, in the presence of the teacher; those of the written part cannot be entered until the exercises of the pupils have been read. All the marks of the oral and written portions appear on the examination roll, which is sent to the school and retained there. The Commissioners do not deem further instructions to Inspectors on the point necessary.

  DAMAGES AGAINST AN IRISH CONSTABLE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in an action before Judge Gibson and a special jury, in Dublin on the 18th instant, Rev. M. B. Kennedy, CO, Meelin, County Cork, obtained a verdict for £100 damages and costs against Sergeant Hyde, R.I.C., Meelin, for trespass, and assault on the
  1500
  reverend plaintiff; whether the Constabulary Authorities will take rote of the conduct of this policeman as detailed in the trial; and have the Constabulary Authorities or the Government paid the expenses of this constable in whole or in part or do they intend so to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that a new trial will be applied for. I cannot, therefore, enter into particulars in regard to the case.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Government pay the £100, and from what source will it be paid?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot reply, until the whole case is settled.

  CLARE INFIRMARY.
  DR. KENNY: I' beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that last year, when the two honourable Members for Clare (Mr. Cox and Mr. Jordan) attended at Ennis in response to a summons sent to them by the Registrar of the Clare Infirmary, of which institution they are Governors, to take part in the election of a physician to the infirmary, they were shadowed by the police during their entire stay in Ennis, and that during the entire time the election above mentioned was proceeding, a police guard was stationed in the immediate vicinity of the infirmary; and whether ho can state by whose direction the police acted in the manner above described?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not had sufficient notice of the question, and must ask the hon. Member to defer it.

  MR. C. P. REDMOND.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. C. P. Redmond, editor of the Water-ford News, has been sentenced by Messrs. Considine and Irwin at Waterford on June 6th, to three months' imprisonment for publishing a resolution of the Kilgobenet Branch of the Irish National League; whether Mr. Redmond was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment for publishing in another issue of the Waterford News another resolution of the same branch; whether Mr. Redmond was convicted on a third charge, stated by the Court to be a graver offence than the other charges, to 14 days'

  1501
  imprisonment, and ordered at the expiration of that period to enter into security himself in the sum of £200, and two sureties of £100 each, to be of good behaviour, or in default to go to prison for four months: whether there is an appeal from the last sentence; whether the Magistrates refuse to impose a sentence which would give a right of appeal; whether the same course of refusing an appeal has not been adopted recently by the same Magistrates in the case of Mr. Fisher, editor of the Munster Express; and whether he is aware that every decision of Messrs. Considine and Irwin brought before Judge Waters has been reversed by him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. C. P. Redmond was sentenced, as stated in the question, to three months' imprisonment for using, intimidation towards three persons by means of a published report of the proceedings of the Kilgobenet branch of the Irish National League, which appeared in the issue of his newspaper of April 5, 1890. He was also sentenced on the 7th of June to a like term of imprisonment for using intimidation towards three other parsons by means of a similar publication in the issue of his newspaper of April 12, 1890. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the previous one, as the two publications were connected with the one matter. The order mentioned of 14 days' imprisonment and to find sureties was made on the same date for using intimidation towards Matthew Walsh by means of a published report of the proceedings of the Dungarvan Branch of the Irish National League, which appeared in the issue of his newspaper of April 26, 1890. The case was a very bad one; I presume the character of the sentence was modified by the fact that on the same day the same man had been sentenced to imprisonment for three months. There is no appeal, nor does there appear to have been any doubt connected either with the law or the facts of the case which rendered an appeal necessary. I believe there has been a difference of opinion on more than one occasion between the County Court Judge in question and the Magistrates; but in every case where the difference came up for decision by the High Court, that Judge was proved to be wrong, and the Magistrates to be
  1502
  right. Matthew Walsh has for a long time been subjected to boycotting and intimidation, and the Magistrates stated the report was of a most intimidatory character, and the worst that had come before them; that if they had had cognisance of this offence before the previous cases they would have felt it their duty to impose a very severe sentence; but as they had already sentenced Mr. Redmond at the same sittings to imprisonment, and desired rather to-restrain such conduct than to punish the defendant, they would not make a cumulative order, but exercise their preventive jurisdiction. There is no appeal from the last sentence, but if it was made without any sufficient evidence it can be reviewed by the Superior Courts. The Magistrates refused to alter the order on the ground, which was not disputed, that there was no legal point involved, and also on the ground that in a similar case the Queen's Bench Division had recently held on a case stated that there was ample evidence to justify the conviction. An appeal was refused in the-ease referred to for similar reasons as in Mr. Redmond's case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (Ireland) was before the House, he did not distinctly promise that there should be an appeal in every case?
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I also ask in regard to one of the Magistrates—Mr. Considine—if it is not the fact that he is completely without legal training of any kind? When under cross-examination as to his legal qualifications did he not admit, in the most candid manner, that his only qualification was that he had kept two dinner terms in the Inner Temple?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I am not aware that that is the fact. With regard to the allegation that I could have control over the judicial acts of the Magistrates, I beg to give it—and not for the first time—an emphatic contradiction.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of giving short sentences by the Irish Magistrates in order to prevent appeal began immediately after a speech he made at Birmingham?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware of it.

  THE CLANRICARDE TENANTRY.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Head Constable Judge and the police in Portumna have been going amongst the Clanricarde tenantry with a list of the tenants who they say paid their rents; who supplied this list to Head Constable Judge; and by whose orders this constable and the police under him are doing this duty of bailiff for Lord Clanricarde?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A full Report has not yet reached me. I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question.

  CASHEL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority, and for what reason, groups of policemen hung about the entrance to the Town Hall of Cashel at the time appointed for the last meeting of the Municipal Commissioners, and took down the name of each Commissioner as he entered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the case that there were groups of police as alleged. Only four men were on duty at the time; of these, two were on ordinary beat duty, and two who happened to be on patrol and who observed those who entered and left the Town Hall, but no note was taken as alleged.

  FLASHING SIGNALS-ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has been arrived at by the Treasury with regard to the claim, of Admiral Colomb for compensation in respect of his invention of flashing signals?
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman, who has been good enough at my request to postpone this question; but I hope in a few days to give him a definite answer.

  THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.
  MR. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether anything has been decided with regard to the appointment of the new Chief Commissioner?
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: On this subject I wish to ask whether it is true, as stated in yesterday's Standard, that there is reason to believe that through the action of Lord Salisbury the differences between Mr. Matthews and the Chief Commissioner of Police will be adjusted, and in that event Mr. Monro's resignation will be withdrawn?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the appointment of Sir Edward Bradford as Commissioner of Police, to the office just vacated by the resignation of Mr. Monro. I need say nothing to the House of the distinguished career and services of Sir E. Bradford.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Is Sir E. Bradford an old military officer or not?
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Was Sir E. Bradford the gentleman who has been a distinguished Resident and Representative in Jeypore?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what experience Sir E. Bradford has had with regard to the control of civil bodies responsible for order?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Sir E. Bradford has had a wide and varied experience in many offices of the Public Service. At the present moment he is employed in the India Office. He was for some years Governor General's Agent for Rajpootana. In that capacity he conducted the whole military and civil service of the district, and rendered most valuable services to his country. He has also been for many years an officer in the Madras army.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has he ever been in charge of any police force such as we have in the Metropolis?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Among Europeans.
  MR. MATTHEWS: He has commanded the police, as I have stated.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the services of this gentleman have always been employed in Asiatic countries, and not among people of English race.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; he has been employed in this country in connection with the India Office since 1887.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Has he in the India Office been connected with bodies which can at all be considered to have such functions to perform as the police of the Metropolis have?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I believe Sir E. Bradford to be, both by character and experience, thoroughly qualified.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  THE NEW STANDING ORDER.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I beg to give notice that when the Leader of the House moves the proposed Standing Order [Mr. W. H. SMITH here rose, but Mr. WHITBEEAD declined to give way] for carrying over Bills from one Session to another, it is my intention to move as an Amendment—
  "That the Motion for a Standing Order involving so great a change in the usages of Parliament and the Constitution ought not to be considered until, the House, agreeably to former practice, has had the advantage of the previous consideration of the subject by a Committee of this House."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I was anxious to save the hon. Gentleman the trouble of giving notice of his Amendment. I have considered the suggestion which was made in the notice of the Amendment given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian during the past week, and the many suggestions which have reached me from hon. Friends in different parts of the House, and it was my intention to give notice of the following Resolution:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, by means of an abridged form of procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of Bills partly considered in this House could be facilitated in the ensuing Session of the same Parliament."
  I propose to move this Resolution on Monday next, in the hope and belief that it will be accepted by the House in the spirit in which it is offered, as a
  1506
  step towards the consideration of a question which is of great importance to the House itself, and that the Debate will be postponed until we receive the Report of the Committee. I trust that I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

  MR. LONG AND THE BREWING INTEREST.
  MR. STOREY: With your permission, Sir, I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice; and as the matter is one that is personal both to him and to myself, I trust the House will allow me very briefly to recall the circumstances. On Tuesday night last I named the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board as one whose vote I asked should be disallowed because he was pecuniarily interested in the matter affected by the Bill. I was not allowed to make the Motion, and the hon. Member rose and, as I understood him, stated to the House that his only connection with the matter was that he had lent his brother money, and that he was not a shareholder in a brewery. I say that is what I understood him to say. A great many other hon. Members on this side of the House also understood the same, and I am bound to say, having examined a very large number of the principal newspapers of the country, I find that, almost without exception, that was the idea conveyed to them. For instance, the Times—if that can be called a principal newspaper—says: "Mr. Long and Sir M. Hicks Beach have denied that they were interested in any brewery."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am bound to say that what occurred took place in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the sole judge of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to make any Motion, but if he does I think it ought to be in Committee, provided that fresh circumstances have occurred that would justify the re opening of the question. If the hon. Member is going to ask a question he would be in order.
  MR. STOREY: That is what I am going to do—to ask a question. I am

  1507
  bound to say that since the hon. Gentleman made his statement in Committee he has sent a letter to the Times, in which he states that he did inform the Committee that he was a shareholder in a brewery company. I, for one, accept that statement. My questions to the hon. Gentleman, are these: (1.) Washenot one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? (2.) Does not his name appear on the Memorandum of Association? (3.) Was he not, and is he not now, one of the directors and chairman of the company, receiving the usual fees? {4.) Has he not all along been, and is he not now, an ordinary shareholder, entitled to his proportion of the profits of the company, and has not the said Brewery Company in its possession no less than 90 tied houses, which are affected by this Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long, Wilts,): I desire, in the first place, to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland for the very full and sufficient notice he was good enough to give me of his intention to bring forward this subject. I desire also to thank him for having given me this opportunity of making a short, and I hope a satisfactory, explanation to the House. I make no complaint of the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not carry away from the Committee that impression of my remarks which I intended to convoy. I desire to apologise to the House for not expressing myself on that occasion so clearly and fully as I ought to have done. I hope the House will allow me to say in excuse for this omission on my part that I was completely taken aback at the moment. I had no notice that such a question was to be referred to, and was not in the House when the hon. Member for Cirencester made his speech. I did at the time feel somewhat acutely what appeared to be an imputation implying dishonourable motives inconnection with my Parliamentary action. With reference to the question, Was I not one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? I am not quite sure what a "founder" is. I had no interest in this company until I was asked by local gentlemen personally known to me if I would accept that position in the company, and I said I
  1508
  would if all things were satisfactorily and properly conducted, Secondly, I believe my name does appear as one of the first shareholders. I should like to be allowed to add that my interest in this concern amounts to £1,000, and that I am chairman, and receive my fees as such. I believe the statement as to the tied houses to be correct. I feel I owe an explanation to the House as to why it was that when the question was raised I did not enter upon this point. The fact is, as I have already said, that I was somewhat taken aback, and, in the second place, my attention was directed solely to the point raised by the hon. Member. I admit that it ought not to have been so, but for the moment it did not occur to mo that my position as the Chairman or a Director of the Company was a matter which I ought to have mentioned to the Committee. I did mention the fact that I was a shareholder. I should like to be allowed to add that after I sat down it occurred to me that I had not sufficiently taken the Committee into my confidence. I went into the Lobby and consulted one or two hon. Gentlemen as to whether I ought to add a further statement to what I had said. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House assured me that my statement was sufficiently complete, and, following their advice, I did not make any further statement. I hope the House will believe what I most sincerely assure them, that I had no intention whatever of concealing my connection with this Brewery Company or in any way minimising my position with regard to it. My desire was to state fully what my position was, and I very much regret I omitted to state I was Chairman of that Company. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving mo this opportunity of correcting what I said.
  MR. STOREY: Perhaps the House will allow me to say I accept the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with willingness, fully believing that he acted from pure inadvertence. But, of course, in saying that, I still retain my own conviction that it is not desirable that this Bill should be pushed forward by the votes of Members interested in the trade.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is it intended to go on with the Local Taxation Bill on Monday, or will it be dropped?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will come on on Monday after the Motion I shall make at an early hour in the evening.
MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, S.): Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the Lord Advocate shall be in his place on Monday when the Bill comes on?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to ask that question. The House is well aware that the Lord Advocate is most constant in his attendance in the House, and most assiduous in the discharge of his public duties.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to call attention to Mr. T. W. Russell's letter on the licensing question in Ireland, which appears in the Times of to-day, and to ask the Government when the Amendments extending the Licensing Clauses to Ireland will be laid on the Table?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman's memory has somewhat failed him in this matter. In the course of the animated discussion which took place some time back on this question, I stated not once, but many times, that the Government would not be responsible for putting Amendments of the kind suggested on the Paper; but that if hon. Members put Amendments on the Paper the Government would consider them.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Drafting Amendments to a Bill is a work of almost inconceivable trouble. Are hon. Members to take all that trouble, and is the only return to be that the Government will consider them?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The labour of drafting Amendments may be considerable, but it seems to have been got over some what successfully in regard to this Bill. I prefer the Bill in its present shape, and do not think we should gain by introducing the innumerable questions which would be raised by the Amendments suggested. I think the whole thing should stand over until Local Government has been established in Ireland.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when that will be?
MR. HUNTER: When will the Scotch Police Bill be introduced?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the Scotch Superannuation Bill will be printed and circulated to-morrow.

ON-LICENCES.
Return ordered—
"Of (1) the number of On-Licences in each licensing district where the tenant and owner on the register are different persons; and (2) the number of persons in each district, and the names of such persons, who are on the register as owners of two, three, four, and any greater number of premises in respect of which On-Licences have been granted, with the number of such licences attached to each name."—(Mr. Summers.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £37,586, 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 1891, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think that, during the 60 years which have elapsed since the Metropolitan Police Force was established, the House of Commons has ever come to the consideration of this Vote in circumstances more grave, and, I may say, more dangerous. Nobody can deny that the condition of things in reference to the Metropolitan Police at this moment is most profoundly unsatisfactory. We had occasion more than a year ago to discuss this matter, when, unfortunately, differences of opinion had arisen between the Secretary of State and the then Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir C. Warren, which led to Sir Charles Warren's retirement. The Home Secretary has now

    1511
    parted with, a second Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr. Monro, and an open breach, which, in my opinion, is most mischievous and dangerous to the discipline of the Metropolitan Police, has taken place between the authorities at the Home Office and the authorities at Scotland Yard. This is not a matter to be considered in a Party spirit, or from a Party point of view. I think I have some claim to say that, because in the difficulties that arose between the Home Secretary and Sir C. Warren I did my best, not to support the Government or the right hon. Gentleman, but to support the authority of the office that he held. I am sorry to say that with precisely the same object and with every desire to support the Secretary of State, and the authority and dignity of Iris office, I have come to a totally different conclusion, and I also regret to have to state that what I have to say must be in entire condemnation of the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this occasion. On the previous occasion—and I recall the fact with pleasure—I had the gratification of being thanked by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the course I then took. I do not know whether he will thank me now, but I intend now to act on precisely the same principle that I acted upon then. It is natural for anyone who has discharged the duties of the responsible office of Home Secretary to have a certain sympathy with those who hold that office, and to desire to maintain the authority and the traditions of that office; and certainly it always has been and always shall be my wish to do so. But I cannot help asking how the Secretary of State has acted in this matter. If I condemn the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, it is because, in my opinion, he has strained the authority of his office and has lowered its credit by the course which he has pursued. The situation which arose a year and a half ago in connection with the case of Sir Charles Warren filled me with surprise as we had had no former experience of such a state of things existing between the Home Office and Scotland Yard. During the time of my predecessors in office, Sir Ft. Cross, Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, and Sir G. Gray, there was complete confidence between the two Departments, and there was a complete absence of con-
    1512
    flict and of friction between the Secretary of State and those who, as his subordinates and his assistants, were at the head of the police; and therefore I view the new spectacle of conflict and friction between the Home Office and Scotland Yard with surprise and regret. For my own part, I had the advantage of acting at the Home Office with the most eminent public servants who were at the head of the Metropolitan Police. I have always borne testimony and I always shall bear it to the signal qualities which were possessed by Sir Edmund Henderson, whose judgment and good sense were beyond all praise, and I have always regarded what I may call the accidental misfortune which led to his retirement from his office as a grievous loss both to the public and to the police. I had also the advantage of acting with the late Colonel Pearson, whose death all who knew him will regret. I was also very sorry when the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield left the Police Force, not because of any difference which had arisen between himself and the Home Office, but because he was seeking another and a larger career. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will bear testimony to the fact that in his days the relations between the Home Office and Scotland Yard were of the most friendly description. There was in those days no question as to the supremacy of the Secretary of State—he undoubtedly was supreme, and he must be supreme, because he is responsible to this House; and in the future, as in the past, the head of the police must be responsible to somebody, either to the Secretary of State or to the County Council. But in those days no question arose about the supreme authority of the Secretary of State. There was no occasion for it to arise; that authority was never questioned; it was never disputed; it was never, I hope, assorted offensively or tyrannically. The Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police were upon the footing with regard to each other of confidential colleagues, who were acting together in discharging a very responsible public duty. In my opinion, the first principle of good administration is that the chief of any Department should seek to acquire and to command the sympathies and the goodwill of the men with whom and through

    1513
    whom he has to work. In the present case what do we see? There is a constant conflict between the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police, and certainly there are indications of a great deal more conflict than has actually come to our knowledge. There have been retirements of one Chief Commissioner of Police after another, and beyond that there is a discontented and dissatisfied Police Force as the result of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office during the past four years. In my opinion, it is impossible that such a state of things should be allowed to go on. The retirement of Sir Charles Warren, necessary as it was, was to my mind a great blow to the discipline of the Police Force. The spectacle of the Home Secretary divided from the Chief Commissioner of Police was one which the Police Force had never seen before, and it had a most injurious effect upon that force. But the resignation of Mr. Monro, and the circumstances by which it was accompanied, are of a much more serious nature, because it is no secret that at this moment the Police Force have rallied round the Chief Commissioner and against the Home Secretary. That is a very grave situation, and one of which we have had no previous experience. In my opinion, that is not a safe state of things for the Metropolis, and it is one which constitutes tin extremely evil condition of things for the police. What has brought about this extraordinary and deplorable result? We do not know. We have had a, statement from the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman the other day read a letter from Mr. Monro, and made a statement with reference to it which Mr. Monro has declared to be an incomplete and ex parte statement. I have asked over and over again for further Papers on the subject, but they are not forthcoming. This is the statement of Mr. Monro in a letter of his which has been published—
    "My views as to police administration, unfortunately, differ in many important respects from those held by the Secretary of State, and I have received clear indications that the duties of the successor of Colonel Pearson are to be intrusted to a gentleman who, however estimable personally, has no police, military, or legal training."
    We, therefore, know that the Secretary
    1514
    of State was at issue with the Chief Commissioner of Police in many important respects on matters of police administration. This is a very unfortunate state of things. The two particulars which have been given, in reference to which there has been a difference of opinion between the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner, are, first, the appointment of Colonel Pearson's successor; and, secondly, the question of police superannuation. In Mr. Ruggles-Brise, whose name has been imported into this discussion, I take a very strong personal interest. I had the pleasure, and I consider it an honour, to have introduced Mr. Ruggles-Brise into the Public Service. He was the son of a respected Member who formerly-sat on the other side of the House, but that was a fact that I did not take into consideration when I appointed him, because I think that, in making appointments in the Public Service, we ought not to be influenced by political considerations. Mr. Ruggles-Brise entered the Public Service with the highest character to recommend him—he had distinguished himself at the University, and he more than fulfilled the expectations that had been formed with regard to him, and in a remarkably short space of time he reached a very distinguished position, and he has filled the office of private secretary, not only to myself, but to all my successors. Certainly there is no man more deserving of public preferment than Mr. Ruggles-Brise. But, in appointing a successor to Colonel Pearson, one of the first conditions was that the appointment should be made with the cordial co-operation and sympathy of the gentleman who was to be the chief and the colleague of the person appointed. I wish to illustrate my meaning by referring' to the case of Mr. Monro. I also had the high honour of introducing Mr. Monro into the Police Force when the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield retired. Mr. Monro was recommended to me. I did not know him personally. I suggested his name to Sir Edmund Henderson; and I confess that Sir Edmund had at the time some doubts whether Mr. Monro's Indian experience was sufficient to render his appointment desirable. However, upon consideration, Colonel Henderson said, "If your judgment is so, I shall be

    1515
    delighted to receive Mr. Monro and to have experience of his services." A fortnight afterwards Colonel Henderson called upon me, and he said, "I have to come to thank you for having placed in Scotland Yard one of the best and ablest men we have ever had there." In my opinion, there ought to be between the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner that sort of good feeling which leads to cordial concurrence in the making of appointments of that description. What does Mr. Monro say? He says that the duties of the successor to Colonel Pearson are to be intrusted to a gentleman who, however estimable, he does not think fit for the place. The right hon. Gentleman left Mr. Monro to retire under the conviction that he was to have as a colleague a gentleman he objected to, and that the Secretary of State was refusing to appoint a gentleman who had his entire confidence, and who he thought ought to be appointed. While accepting the resignation of Mr. Monro, tendered under that belief, the right hon. Gentleman said that all the time he was intending to appoint the gentleman named by Mr. Monro. I call that bad administration. If Mr. Monro was a valuable public servant, why was he to be allowed to resign under a misapprehension of this character? What led Mr. Monro to believe that Mr. Ruggles-Brise was to be appointed and that Mr. Howard was not to be appointed? Why was Mr. Monro not told that Mr. 'Howard was to be appointed until after his own resignation had been accepted? With reference to this office, of course the Minister who is responsible must be the best judge of an appointment; but still it is a grave responsibility for a Secretary of State to refuse to listen to the advice of the Chief Commissioner when he recommends that an office shall be given, by way of promotion, to a gentleman who is already in the force. I do not say that the force have any right to claim promotion; I do not say that there is any limit upon the discretion or upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State; but when it is placed before him that it may lead to discontent in the force if promotion is not given to one already in the force, it is a heavy responsibility he incurs in refusing the advice of the Chief Commissioner, or leading him to believe it is
    1516
    refused. What do the police think.—what can they think—when they find Mr. Monro resigning and see it stated that he has resigned because a promotion was not made from the force, and the next day they see that, under the stress of his resignation, the appointment he desired to make has been made? In these circumstances, what becomes of the authority of the Secretary of State? How can it be sustained and respected I In my opinion, the whole proceeding, so far as we are permitted to know anything about it, was a most injudicious proceeding. The popular impression is that the Home Secretary did not intend to appoint Mr. Howard, or he did not let Mr. Monro know he intended to appoint him until he had allowed Mr. Monro to resign under the belief that Mr. Howard was not to be appointed. If that is not so, no doubt the facts as we know them will be altered by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. If he did not agree to the appointment of Mr. Howard before the resignation of Mr. Monro, and if he agreed to the appointment after the resignation, I say that is bad administration; and I cannot conceive that anything could be more injurious to the discipline of the police, seeing that the light hon. Gentleman is made by Act of Parliament the highest authority over the police. So much for the personal matter with reference to the appointment of a successor to Colonel Pearson. I now come to the greater matter of superannuation; and here, again, we do not know all that has happened with reference to the Superannuation Bill. We have the statement that the Chief Commissioner had come to arm's-length with the Secretary of State on the subject of superannuation: and a more unfortunate condition of things, with reference to administration, it is impossible to conceive. The other day the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Superannuation Bill of the Government was founded upon, the lines of those Bills which were introduced by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, as well as by a Gentleman whose absence from this House we all regret; I mean Mr. Hibbert. We introduced those Bills with the friendly concurrence and support of the Chief Commissioner of Police; the provisions of those Bills were received with content-

    1517
    ment and satisfaction "by the Police Force, and the terms and conditions were fair and reasonable at that time; but whether you can have those terms again I greatly doubt. The mis-management and misconduct of the right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, have made it very difficult, if not impossible, to recur to those terms. What has he done? He has allowed the Chief Commissioner of Police to resign upon a Superannuation Bill, and to gather the Police Force around him as their champion. Here is the Secretary of State at issue with the man who, up to five minutes ago, has been acting as Chief Commissioner of Police, and at issue upon this very question. That is the position into which the administration of the right hon. Gentleman has brought us. That being so, if you cannot now settle the matter upon the terms of former Superannuation Bills, the consequence must J be that the ratepayers will have to pay a heavy price for your mis-management. Whatever rule you are going to apply to the Metropolitan Police you must apply to the police all over the country; they demand, and they have a right to demand, that they shall be dealt with on the same terms. Therefore, if yon are obliged to alter those terms, you will have to alter your unfortunate Local Taxation Bill, because you will have to deal with the question of superannuation upon a different footing. What, then, is the situation in which we are placed? When the Metropolitan Police was instituted it was placed under the immediate authority of the Secretary of State. What authority has the Secretary of State had over the London Police during the last fortnight? Absolutely none. It has not been to him they have looked as the head of it; it has not been to him they have looked for instructions; they have looked to a different quarter. The position of the Metropolis is different from that of all other Municipalities. In all other Municipalities the police is under the control of a popular body, which has behind it the force of the public opinion of the community it represents. For reasons which were thought good at the time, and which I myself have thought good since, a different rule has been established in the Metropolis, and the police are put under the Executive Government and
    1518
    under the authority of the Secretary of State. He does not carry with him that authority which belongs to the Watch Committee of a Town Council. His authority must depend entirely upon the exercise of judgment and discretion. When that authority is subverted, what is your position? You have nothing to-replace it. In the Metropolis you have something like a Praetorian guard, subject to no Local Authority, electing its own Emperor, and doing what it pleases. That is a situation which our Constitution does not recognise. You must choose between two thin:, s—you must either have ministerial responsibility to this House, or you must have a Municipality having authority over its own police. I am bound to say, holding the opinions I have held and being aware of the risks which might befal the popular administration of the police in the Metropolis, I think the evils existing at this moment in the Police Force in relation to the Secretary of State are greater than any risk which could arise under municipal control. In my opinion, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has inflicted a fatal and incurable blow upon the authority of the Secretary of State over the Metropolitan Police. I doubt whether it is possible to retrieve the position after what has gone on in London, with the police despising the Secretary of State, and holding meetings under the auspices of the Chief Commissioner, and with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner at arm's length. If the Secretary of State could not agree with Mr. Monro, why was not his successor appointed at once, so that the Secretary of State might have had the co-operation of a Chief Commissioner with whom he was in accord, and the authority of his office might have been-maintained? I can only conjecture it took some time to find anybody with courage to assume the office under the-circum stances. I do not blame Mr. Monro; I do not blame the police; I. blame the Secretary of State for a condition of things absolutely Inconsistent with the discipline of the force. Just consider what was happening the other, day. We begin with the Chief Inspectors and Superintendents holding meetings to discuss and condemn the legislative policy of the Secretary of State

    1519
    Is that a thing which, in the midst of a population of 5,000,000, can be permitted? Let me give a parallel. Suppose that under the auspices of the Commander-in-Chief the Army at Aldershot were collected to discuss the Estimates and to condemn the conduct of the Secretary of State for War. That is just parallel to what has been happening in London during the last fortnight, and the Secretary of State sits down calmly under it. One of two things ought to have happened. Either Mr. Monro was wrong, and should have been removed from authority by the Secretary of State, or, as I am much inclined to think, Mr. Monro was in the right, and the Secretary of State should have removed himself. To go on in this state of things is to exhibit to the police an example of indiscipline, between the Chief Commissioner and his chief, which is certain to demoralise and have a most injurious effect upon the police. What authority can the Secretary of State be expected to exercise? The whole Force have no regard for him at all, but look to the Chief Commissioner as the man to settle their grievances, to direct their policy, and positively to appoint the Assistant Commissioner. That is the position they have taken up. They took up that position in reference to the appointment of Mr. Howard, and, to their view, the Secretary of State has succumbed. They have taken up that position in reference to pay and pensions, and what will be the issue of that it would be a bold man who would predict. That is the position into which the Metropolitan Police have been brought by the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. As to the successor of Mr. Monro, paragraphs have appeared in the papers saying that Mr. Monro is to return. I never believed in that report, much as I should desire it to be true. How could Mr. Monro return—excellent Chief Commissioner as he is? Why, Sir, if he had come back, lie must have come back as the master of the Secretary of State. Why has the Secretary of State put himself in a position in which so valuable an officer cannot return? I have known Mr. Monro, and I am sure there could not be the smallest difficulty in two persons of whom he was one coming to such, an understanding as should exist between such officials. Mr. Monro cannot return.
    1520
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman: Have the Government considered what may be the consequences of Mr. Monro's not returning? Have they considered the position in which Mr. Monro stands at this moment in reference to the Metropolitan Police? I do not want to aggravate the difficulty of the position, but, in my opinion, it is so grave that I cannot pass over it. I will say nothing with reference to the distinguished gentleman who has accepted the position of Chief Commissioner of Police. I know how difficult such a position must be for anyone coming fresh to it with things in their present condition. But, with reference to Mr. Monro, I think that one of the great merits and advantages of his position was that he was a civilian. I do not lay that down as an absolute rule. I have known distinguished men in the control of the Police Force who were military men; but depend upon it, in the Control of a Police Force, let it be a large force or a small one, the only chance of success for a military man is to divest himself of the military spirit as Sir E. Henderson so admirably did. If you attempt to introduce a military administration it will be a great disaster. I hope the distinguished officer who has been newly appointed will enter upon the position with a sense of that fact. I should not be doing my duty if I did not express my opinion that the introduction of a military spirit into the discipline of the Metropolitan Police is one of the worst things that can happen to that force, or to the population committed to their charge. I have said that I regard the existing system as only a temporary system. I have arrived with regret at the conclusion that what has happened during the last four years has so shaken and undermined the authority of the Secretary of State that it will be impossible permanently to retain the authority over the police in the present hands. I believe the record of the right hon. Gentleman's administration will be that it has put an end to the present system. We have to think of the present and the immediate future. No change in the existing system can now be made, but it is impossible that in the present hands the system can go on. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in the present state of the feeling of the police—in presence of the fact that he

    1521
    has caused and maintained the resignation of Mr. Monro—can with advantage restore the police to that condition of discipline which is absolutely essential to the well-being of the Metropolis; and, therefore, in speaking of the right hon. Gentleman's position, and the course which he has taken, I regard in him the great obstacle to the restoration of a sound and proper feeling on the part of the police of London. I regret to have to make this statement, but nobody can doubt that the position of the police is getting worse from day to day. Yesterday it was a question of the Superintendents and their ultimatum; to-day, I see by the newspapers, it is a question of the Force itself, who desire to go further, and in a different direction to the ultimatum of the Superintendents. What is the situation of the Police Force on the dismissal of the justly-popular Chief Commissioner? They are, and have been, gathering under the auspices of that Chief Commissioner to remonstrate with, and to discuss and practically to destroy the authority of, the Secretary of State. That is a condition not creditable, not safe, and absolutely un-Constitutional. This is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to continue. It is a state of things which has never existed before, and I think the Government will make a great mistake if they do not recognise the fact that the police must be dealt with in a different manner and in different hands.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): I have, of course, no complaint to make, Sir, of the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman as far as it applies to me personally. But I should have been better pleased if he had based that attack upon a statement of facts somewhat more definite, in order that I could more readily grapple with it. The right hon. Gentleman has made me personally responsible for everything that has happened untowardly, and very much to my regret, for some weeks past; and he has done it without making that statement of fact which would justify him in bringing such charges, against even a political opponent, in a matter which, as the right hon. Gentleman himself justly observed, is not a Party matter. Most assuredly I cannot take
    1522
    to myself the blame of the slightest difference with Mr. Monro which is due to my own conduct. I have had, and have now, every feeling of sympathy for Mr. Monro. I selected him to be Chief Commissioner, knowing him to be a fit and able man for the post, and in many particulars he has discharged the duties of the office highly to my satisfaction. I deny in the most absolute way that there has been any personal difference between Mr. Monro and myself as to the discharge of his duties, which has led to his resignation. Nobody more regretted or was more surprised at that resignation than I was. The right hon. Gentleman has inquired into the causes of that resignation, and there, I think, he was not quite fair, because he put in the front rank the question about the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner. I say again—and I have good reason for the statement—that that question had nothing to do with Mr. Monro's resignation. If Mr. Ruggles-Brise had been appointed, Mr. Monro would not have thought it necessary to resign, and I have stated to the House, as I also stated to Mr. Monro, that I would not have accepted that as the ground of his ultimatum. As I said when the resignation was tendered to me, I had formed no decision on the question of whom I should appoint, and I had expressed no decision to Mr. Monro. I did in this matter what the right hon. Gentle-man said every Secretary of State ought to do in distributing patronage in the police. The appointment, of course, is mine, and I am responsible for it; but I desired, above all things, to make no appointment against the opinion and feeling of the Chief Commissioner, and accordingly I took the opportunity, Mr. Monro having submitted to me a recommendation, of opening the subject. I need have no delicacy in mentioning names now, as they have already been made so public. Mr. Monro recommended Mr. Howard. I had, of course, numerous other applicants for the post, and, among others, was Mr. Ruggles-Brise. I am happy to join most emphatically in the praise which the right hon. Gentleman has awarded to Mr. Ruggles-Brise, but the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect in one particular. It was not due to the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Ruggles-Brise entered the Public Service. He

    1523
    obtained a distinguished place in it by competitive examination, and he came with a first-class from Oxford.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I appointed him to the Home Office.
    MR. MATTHEWS: No; he came in by competitive examination. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am right. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman appointed him as his private secretary, but he entered the Civil Service by competitive examination, having shown his ability by taking a first-class at Oxford. In my experience of him—now lasting four years—I found that his ability, character, and capacity for business were such that I considered him a perfectly fit candidate for the position of Assistant Commissioner. He has served not only as private secretary to myself, but also to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), and Viscount Cross when he was at the Home Office. He has, therefore, for five years had—it is true, not an experience of the actual administration of the Police Fores—but has had knowledge of all the principles of policy which have guided successive Secretaries of State in dealing with the Police Force; and that, in my judgment, eminently fitted him for the office of Assistant Commissioner. I discussed the merits of the candidates frankly and confidentially with Mr. Monro. I desired to hold that kind of confidential communication which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman ought to take place between the Minister in whom the patronage is vested and the chief of the Department in which that patronage is to take place. It was in order to ascertain the feelings of Mr. Monro on the subject that I had this conversation with him. This conversation took place on June 9, and the interview closed without my having formed or expressed any determination as to the person whom I should appoint as Assistant Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman has found fault with me for appointing Mr. Howard. My reasons are these, and I will be perfectly frank with the House: I felt the moment Mr. Monro's resignation was in my hands on June 10 that the want of experience in Mr. Ruggles-Brise, which, under Mr. Monro's own guidance, would have been of compara-
    1524
    tively small importance, now assumed, on the contrary, the gravest importance. While the scale might have been very evenly balanced between the two candidates up to that time, yet, after Mr. Monro's resignation, the claims of the candidate who had had daily experience of the police decidedly preponderated. That is the whole story of this matter of patronage. I regret that it was ever introduced at all to public notice. It must be disagreeable to both the gentlemen whose names have been mentioned. I think I am entitled to say, from communication I have had with him, that it was not, and could not have been, the cause of the resignation of Mr. Monro even if Mr. Ruggles-Brise had been appointed, and it certainly ought not to be suggested as the cause of my appointing Mr. Howard that Mr. Monro resigned because I at first proposed to appoint Mr. Ruggles-Brise. Now, I cannot disguise from the House the fact that this question of police superannuation is one of extraordinary gravity. The right hon. Gentleman has charitably said that the ratepayers will have to thank me for increased burdens. I can only soy that for more than 12 months my best attention and endeavours have been given to devising some means of diminishing the burden, already too heavy, which weighs on the Metropolitan ratepayers in that respect. The rapid growth of the deficiency in the superannuation income has been the cause of grave anxiety to me for nearly two years. In 1870 this deficiency was £63,000, whereas in 1889–90 it was close upon £150,000. So heavily did the subject weigh upon my mind that, in the Autumn of 1889, I appointed a Departmental Committee for the purpose of considering the whole question of the superannuation of the Metropolitan Police and what changes in the system could best be effected so as to diminish the burden upon the ratepayers. That Committee was constituted in a way which must command the confidence of the House. The Commissioner and Receiver of the Metropolitan Police were upon it, as were also the Under Secretary for the Home Department, Sir Arthur Haliburton, Assistant Under Secretary at the War Office, and Mr. Mowatt of the Treasury. What I had in my own mind was to bring about, as far as possible, a reduction of the

    1525
    charge of superannuation. Before that Committee there was disclosed a fact unknown before, namely, that in the Metropolitan Police Force itself, which had always been considered to be favoured beyond every other force in the country with regard to superannuation, there was discontent—I will not put it higher than that—with the terms of superannuation allowed. When the Committee began to deliberate on the details of the superannuation scheme generally the attitude of the Commissioner was this: He alleged that a promise had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Har-court) that the pensions of the Metropolitan Police should be improved, and that a similar promise was to be gathered from Bills presented to the House by successive Liberal Governments. Accordingly, he stated to his fellow-Committeemen that he regarded it as a vital principle underlying the whole matter, that a promise had been made to improve the pensions, and he declined even to discuss any detail in connection with the system that was inconsistent with that promise. The alleged promise of the right hon. Gentleman was contained in a speech delivered at a dinner or a luncheon or some festive occasion in favour of the Police Orphanage. I must say I do not gather from that language any promise, nor do I think that any promise can be fairly inferred from the Bills, but Mr. Monro held a different opinion, and this shows that the idea of his resignation was not hastily adopted. When the Commissioner expressed these views I suspended the deliberations of the Departmental Committee, for obviously a Report without the concurrence of the Commissioner would have been satisfactory neither to me nor to any one else. I then turned my mind to the framing of a Bill upon just principles which might meet the exigencies of the case, and I took for my guide the Bill which the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced, but failed to carry. My desire in framing the Bill was most certainly to act as liberally to the police as my financial conscience would allow me. I had not the slightest intention or desire not to treat the police in the future, as I believe they have been treated in the past, with the utmost con-
    1526
    sideration and fairness, and although I could not share the view enunciated by the Commissioner that any promise had been made to the police by the right hon. Gentleman, or by anybody in this House, yet I could not shut my eyes to the fact that the introduction of Bills by successive Governments was a fact upon which just expectations might be founded. It went no further than that. I took these Bills as the basis of the scheme I have endeavoured to frame, and I feel sure that in my drafts I have not given less than was given in them. Indeed, I rather think that, on the whole, the terms I have given are somewhat more advantageous than those of the previous Bills. It was in the discussion of my draft that a cloud arose in a summer sky. I sent the Bill to the Commissioner for his perusal and opinion—a course which I do not think derogatory to the dignity of the Secretary of State, or more than was due to the Commissioner himself. Well, the Commissioner commented with considerable severity on that draft. I spent several hours with him in discussing the question, and I made alterations to meet certain of his views. Many of the points he raised were sound, and I adopted a vast majority of his suggestions. But the point upon which the Commissioner insisted, and without which he stated that, in his view, no Bill would be acceptable to, or would be accepted by, the police, was a pension of not less than two-thirds of the pay for 25 years' service, without condition either of age or medical certificate, and without liability to deduction in the event of service in another police force or in employment of the State. That the Commissioner considered a sine quà non. Now, I believe, and I shall be prepared to argue it when the proper time comes, that with regard to the amount insisted upon by the Commissioner for ultimate pension the demand was not what fairness or even liberality required. I informed the Commissioner that the amounts and the details of the scheme in my draft must be regarded as provisional; that I had not had an opportunity of submitting the draft to my colleagues, and that I should have to get their approval and assent before the Bill was presented to the House, and before the scheme could be regarded as final. I had a difficulty in understanding that

    1527
    the head of the Police Force should, in the circumstances, treat the Bill, though in some points it might not have been in accordance with his views, as aground of resignation. But on June 10, the day after we had discussed the Bill for hours, I received the resignation of the Commissioner, in the terms which have been published. The Commissioner said—
    "The views which I entertain as to the justice and reasonableness of the claims of the Metropolitan Police, in connection with superannuation, being unfortunately on vital points diametrically opposed to those of the Secretary of State, I cannot, for reasons given in my Memorandum of the 5th inst., accept the Bill as adequately meeting such just and reasonable claims."
    In many respects I agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Harcourt) as to the relations that should exist between the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Police. I agree that the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State alone, must be responsible for the policy of the police. [Mr. GRAHAM: The London County Council.] I think that when there is a large force of policemen in the heart of this Metropolis it is not a matter for the County Council. I say that the police must be governed in the last resort by the Secretary of State, who is amenable and responsible to Parliament. Of course, I admit that executive details and the discipline of the Force should rest almost entirely with the Commissioner, and I should certainly abstain from interfering in matters of that kind; but on all questions of policy, involving the finance of the Force, the general rules of the Force, or the relation of the Force to the public—on all questions of this kind—the decision of the Secretary of State must be final. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioner should be consulted, and that every attention should be paid to his opinions, and I readily admit the high capability of Mr. Monro to consult with and advise the Secretary of State. But I also think that on questions of policy it is expedient that the Commissioner of Police should be ready to accept the decisions of the Government, through the Secretary of State, and to cordially carry them out. After giving the most careful consideration I could to this letter of resignation, coming as it did,
    1528
    not merely as an act of hasty feeling, such as may occur to the best of men under given circumstancos, but as the-result of an attitude that had been persistently maintained for months, I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to accept the resignation. In view of the attitude of the Commissioner in assuming to treat, as if he were an independent power, as to the terms of superannuation of his Force, as to demanding from the Government greater pecuniary advantages for the men, and as to tendering his resignation upon the terms-of a Bill which had not been placed before the House, and which no one could settle but the House, and that being not a momentary or hasty act, but the outcome and result of a continued line of action, and a continued expression of opinion, I came to the conclusion it was my duty to accept the resignation. The right hon. Gentleman says that is-all my fault. He has not condescended, to explain how or why. I can only say I exhausted my ingenuity in trying to-frame the terms of the Superannuation Bill in such a way that they might meet with the assent of the Commissioner of Police. I desired, and I shall desire, to have the concurrence of that officer in the proposals which we feel it our duty to submit to Parliament on this subject. I am sure the Commissioner himself will say I was never wanting in consideration or in courtesy to him. Although in what may be compared to a Committee discussion which we held, we both expressed our views decidedly and positively, there was not the least heat, temper, or ill-will displayed. I have said I was surprised at the resignation of Mr. Monro. I have said I accepted it, not on the miserable ground of patronage, which never ought to have been introduced, but on the greater point. I felt I had no alternative but to accept the resignation. I accepted it with very great regret. I take leave to say Mr. Monro has displayed many admirable qualities. He rendered great service to the State as Assistant Commissioner. His organisation of the Department was efficient and successful, and his undertaking the management of the Police Force at the moment of the unfortunate resignation of Sir Charles Warren, to which I do not think it is necessary to refer further; was of itself a

    1529
    service to the public and the Government. In many respects his administration of the police has been extremely efficient and able. No one regrets more than myself the attitude Mr. Monro thought it necessary to adopt upon this question of legislation—an attitude which seemed to me totally inconsistent with the relative position of the Secretary of State and the Government, and of this House, and of Parliament, I and the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says it is all my fault. I listened with some interest and curiosity to know why. He did not enlighten me. I know not how or in what way I could have done more to studiously avoid anything which might lead to friction. The right hon. Gentleman went on to charge upon me, in language certainly of extraordinary vehemence, the state of things that has arisen since the resignation of Mr. Monro. There, again, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken more pains to ascertain the facts. I have most carefully watched, and most accurately ascertained what has been happening from day to day, and here I must defend Mr. Monro against the accusation that was rather suggested than definitely made by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that he had, in some sense, encouraged or promoted something very much resembling disaffection in the Force.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What I did say was that, under the authority of the Commissioner of Police, meetings have been constantly taking place of various members of the Police Force to discuss the measures of the Secretary of State. That I gather from the newspapers. Of course, I assume the meetings were under the authority and permission of the Commissioner of Police, or they could not have taken place.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I repeat it is difficult to grapple with allegations that ended in nothing. The right hon. Gentleman must mean, I suppose, that in consequence of what has happened between the 11th of June and the present day, I ought to have dismissed Mr. Monro from Scotland yard. He is mistaken in his facts. He has accepted statements put forward by interested persons, without any warrant orauthority. These alleged meetings, as reported in the Press, have not taken place;
    1530
    they are the inventions of certain persons—[Sir W. HARCOBRT: The newspapers]—not only the newspapers—who have been attempting to get up an agitation. I have seen letters, and indeed, speeches, by members of what is called the Social Democratic Federation, in which they encourage the police to insubordination.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I was speaking of meetings of Superintendents; and I have seen documents signed by these Superintendents, and there have been sent to me documents purporting to be conclusions and the representations made by these Superintendents.
    MR. MATTHEWS: What actually occurred was this. Mr. Monro called before him the Superintendents, the-Assistant Commissioners, and the Chief Constables, and informed them and directed them to inform the Force, that no meeting of the Force, no irregular agitation, and no combined action would be allowed, and I must, of course, strenuously defend Mr. Monro from the suggestion that, even at the period the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to, he did anything so disloyal, and so contrary to his duty, as to encourage, or foment, or allow anything resembling agitation. The only meeting which took place was a meeting of the chief officers of the police, summoned by the Commissioner himself, and summoned for the purpose of warning them that nothing of the kind now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman must take place. It was quite true, Mr. Monro went on to say, that the Superintendents, each of them in their own divisions, were at liberty to ascertain the best way they could, by private conference and otherwise, the feeling's and opinions of the men stationed under them, and that they might then report to him. This I say, on the best authority, is what occurred. I was, of course, anxious to terminate the existing state of things at Scotland Yard, as rapidly as I could, but the right hon. Gentleman himself must know that the filling of such an office as that of Chief Commissioner of Police is a matter which requires grave consideration. He must also know that various steps are often necessary. I had, above all, to consider, which I did consider, the question of order in the Force, and I conceived that order in the Force would be in greater

    1531
    peril if I left it without a head, and, above all, if I withdrew, in any way resembling discredit, a chief to whom they were attached. Therefore, although I might not absolutely approve of every thing' that has taken place at Whitehall Place, since the 11th of June—
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: {Lanark, N.W.): I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in imputing dereliction of duty to Mr. Monro?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I was imputing no dereliction of duty to Mr. Monro. Mr. Monro being at Whitehall Place was a security for the order and peace in the Metropolis, and a security for the good conduct and subordination of the Police Force, and, therefore, I do not admit I am open to the reproaches of the right hon. Gentleman for having allowed that state of things. I should have been glad if I could have terminated it earlier, but various matters had to be considered. Now, Sir, I am not aware that it would be seemly or right that I should discuss the personal qualities of the gentleman whom I have chosen to succeed Mr. Monro. His career speaks for him. So far as I have been able to judge that career has been distinguished and remarkable for every quality of ability and character. I share the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman that the military spirit is one to be deprecated. I do not agree with Mr. Monro when in his letter of resignation he treats police, military, and legal training upon an almost equal footing. I think the military training is of subordinate use, although I cannot deny that it is some use. Legal training I consider to be positively mischievous. I take the liberty to say that Sir E. Bradford will not bring the military spirit to the command of the police, He is a man whose civil services and whose civilian achievements far and away exceed and outweigh the military portion of his career. He did in India wield, control, and manage the whole civil as well as military administration of the State entrusted to him, and as Political Secretary at the Indian Office for some years he has acquired a more thorough and complete knowledge of civilian matters and pursuits than he even had before. I am quite sure he will not bring to the ad-
    1532
    ministration of the police any of those features the right hon. Gentleman and others desire to see absent. I think I have now travelled over the ground covered by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot, of course, expect to have his approval. I should be glad if he had given me something more tangible to meet. It is a convenient course to say that everything has gone wrong since I was at the Home Office—to attribute it all to my misconduct.
    SIR W. HARCOLRT: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that I defended him on the resignation of Sir Charles Warren.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have by no means forgotten his speech on that occasion. I think it worthy of him and of his best days; but the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for reminding him that he has imputed to me the blame for the resignation of Sir Charles Warren as a sort of makeweight, or as though the second resignation coming on the top of that was only a proof of how much I was to blame. I have laid the reasons for the resignation before the Committee. I believe I have stated them fully, but I am quite ready to answer any question any hon. Member may put to me on the subject. I am unable to take to myself, or to impute to Mr. Monro, anything resembling blame. Mr. Monro is a man of strong will and energetic judgment, and men of that calibre and temper do find it difficult to recognise the Parliamentary exigencies of such a situation as this, and the way in which both they and the Secretary of State must obey the behests and the will of Parliament. Mr. Monro is a man whose opinions and convictions are so strong that he cannot reconcile himself to see anything but the adoption of those opinions. One must take these strong and adamantine characters as they are. Therefore, I beg to exonerate Mr. Monro from blame and censure, beyond that which is a necessary consequence of what I have said. Just as emphatically do I beg to repudiate the charges which in his extremely energetic way the right hon. Gentleman has sought to make against me.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Whatever view may be taken of the action of the Home Secretary, we must all regret a state of things which has given rise to grave apprehension. Up to this evening, it was possible to hope that

    1533
    the Chief Commissionership would have been resumed by Mr. Monro, a gentleman who, whatever may be said for and against him, is certainly regarded as the advocate of the just and legitimate claims of the men, and as having, at all events, this one essential qualification for such an office as this in question, that beyond all doubt and controversy, although he was a strict and rigid disciplinarian, he enjoyed to the fullest extent the confidence of all ranks in the Metropolitan Force. Now, the Home Secretary has laid down a general principle which, in his judgment, should govern the relations between the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner; and, if I may venture to say so, I think he has laid down a sound doctrine. If I understand him correctly, that doctrine is that, so far as policy is concerned, the Home Secretary is and must be supreme; but, so far as administration is concerned, as contra-distinguished from policy, the Chief Commissioner should have, not perhaps an absolutely free hand, but, at all events, that he should have considerable latitude. I regard that as a very sound doctrine, but the mischief of the case is, that there is very little correspondence, so far as the case has been disclosed to us, between the principles and the practice of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has referred at length to the question of superannuation; but as we shall have another opportunity of dealing with that I had better pass it by for the present. But I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to another point of difference mentioned by Mr. Monro in his letter, which was read to us a few nights ago. The passage I have particularly in view, and which the Home Secretary seems to have entirely ignored, is as follows:—
    "For many months I have found myself surrounded with difficulties in attempting to procure recognition of what seemed to me to be the very urgent demands of the Police Service in connection with other important matters."
    that is to say, matters apart from the question of superannuation. On this aspect of the case the right hon. Gentleman has said positively nothing, although it seems to me we cannot really appreciate the merits of the quarrel, if quarrel it may fairly be called, between the right hon. Gen-
    1534
    tleman and the Chief Commissioner until we know what the points are to which reference is made m the passage I have quoted. If I am correctly informed, one of the demands Mr. Monro has been pressing on the attention of the Home Secretary is an improvement in the pay of the Metropolitan Police. For my own part, having devoted some attention to the subject, I think that the question of pay is more important to the rank and file of the Force than the question of superannuation. I find that in the Metropolitan Force, as compared with other Forces, there are very few men over 50, and also very few men who have served over 25 years. Out of a Force consisting of over 14,000 men, only 300 odd have completed 25 years' service. I find also that existing pensioners are comparatively young, the average age being only 45, the average of service having been 21 years. In these circumstances, I think it will be obvious that the question of Superannuation, however important, must be considered also in reference to the question of pay. No doubt, so far as Superintendents and other officers in responsible positions are concerned, the question of superannuation is important, because it takes many years to become Superintendent, and the period when they can claim these pensions must be rapidly approaching. But among the rank and file, pay is even more important than pensions, and, unless I am misinformed, the men consider it so themselves. Now, a word or two on this question of pay, because I think the present scale of pay for constables in the Metropolitan Police is not adequate—first of all, it is not reasonably adequate for the class of men you desire to introduce into the Force, and, I may add, keep there; secondly, it is inadequate, having regard to the duty they have to perform. The peculiar circumstances of London enable us to make a comparison which certainly ought to have great weight; I mean a comparison between the Metropolitan Force and the Police Force of the City of London. An hon. Member the other day asked what was the rate of pay of the City Police, and the right hon. Gentleman, not unnaturally, was unable at the moment to give the information. Now, I propose to place side by side the wages of three classes

    1535
    of constables in the Metropolitan and City Forces. In the lowest class the pay in the Metropolitan Force is 24s. a week, in the City 25s. In the second class 27s. in the Metropolitan Force, and 28s. 8d. in the City Force. And in the first class, which, I understand, can be attained after eight years' service, 30s. and 32s. 3d. respectively. The Committee will see that the rate of pay in the City contrasts very favourably in the interests of the men with the rate in the Metropolitan Force, and I certainly think no reason whatever can be alleged why the Metropolis generally should pay its police at a lower rate than is paid by the London Corporation. We have to consider this question of wages in regard to all classes of public servants, with reference to recent events, which in many cases have raised the rates of wages in trades and occupations outside the Public Service. Take the case of the docker, with 6d. an hour; he works the same number of hours as the police ordinarily do—and I emphasise the word ordinarily, because there is an enormous amount of overtime. The ordinary docker making the ordinary number of hours of police duty receives 26s. a week, or 2s. a week more than the lowest rate of Metropolitan policeman. And I remember after the gas stokers strike seeing an advertisement announcing that, in consequence of the hours of labour in that occupation, stokers were required at 8s. a day. I mention this case particularly; it is not an occupation that requires any training or skill, but simply physical endurance, in this instance no doubt to a considerable degree. But then in the Metropolitan police physical strength is quite as much required as in the work of gas stokers. Now, workmen have recently, by means of combination, and I may say agitation, been able to raise their rate of wages. I am quite aware that combination and agitation are inconvenient, and particularly so in the Public Service, but if you dislike combination and agitation among public; servants, surely the best and most reasonable mode of proceeding is to remove the ground and reason for such by a timely concession of the reasonable demands which policemen or postmen or any body of persons might, by means of combination, be able to enforce. There is another matter not immediately con-
    1536
    cerned with this discussion so far as it has proceeded, upon which I hope we may have some information which has not yet been provided. I refer to the increase of the Metropolitan Police Force by 1,000 men. It is certainly a matter of soreness, a legitimate grievance, as I think, to the ratepayers of London that the Force is to be increased by 1,000 men, and they are, of course, to provide the necessary cost, without being in any way consulted in the matter. I do think that, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the Metropolitan Police, before such an important addition as this was made there ought to have been an inquiry—not a Departmental inquiry, though I do not understand there was even that—but I think there ought to have been an inquiry something in the nature of an inquiry by Select Committee before so important a step, necessitating so considerable an increase on the burdens of the Metropolis, was taken. I want the right hon. Gentleman to-night to give us a direct answer how the cost of these additional 1,000 men is to be provided. We are somewhat at a loss to know from what source it is to be taken. It has been suggested—I do not know whether the suggestion is well founded or not—that the £150,000 which this House, under the Local Taxation Bill, will pay over to the Receiver of Metropolitan Police, or a considerable part of that money, is to be applied to the pay and cost of these 1,000 additional men. If that is so, I do think a course has been taken which, I am afraid, I must call a rather surreptitious course. It ought to have been brought before the attention of the Committee in a more direct manner before being sanctioned. Is this increase really necessary? During the last year or two, I have noticed that members of the Force are being used in a way to which I have not been before accustomed; what I must call a political use is being made of these men. Sometimes, when attending meetings—very small meetings sometimes—I have seen from two to six constables waiting at the door or patrolling near. I have no complaint to make of the conduct of the men; they have always conducted themselves in a proper and civil manner; but in the interest of the ratepayers, in the interest of persons whose property has to be protected, I do com-

    1537
    plain of the presence of these men on such occasions, the waste of the Force, and I think they would be very much better and more usefully employed on their ordinary beats, or their ordinary proper duty of preventing and detecting crime. Upon the question whether or not the increase is necessary, let me compare the position of the London Police and the position of the police in other large towns. In London I find the proportion of police to inhabitants is one to 435. Manchester is the only town that comes near this high proportion; the proportion in provincial towns, and in the largest of them, is generally little over half that of London. Then, again, when I take the test of the number of inhabited houses, I find that in London there are 16 policemen to every 1,000 inhabited houses. No town in the country comes near this proportion, Manchester again coming next with 12 men to every 1,000 inhabited houses. Now, only having regard to this comparison, should it be necessary to increase the number of Metropolitan Police? I hope we shall have some definite and distinct reply from the right hon. Gentleman, and I press this question upon him for this reason: that I find the relation of the population to the criminal classes in London according to Police Returns is as 2,000 to one. In what the public call "pleasure" towns, such as Bath, Brighton, Scarborough, and so on, the estimate is 1,500 to one, and in large centres of industry, such as Birmingham, Sheffield, and Wolverhampton, the criminal class is estimated as one to every 500 of population. Having regard to this ratio, again, I ask why is a still further increase of the Police Force necessary? It is true that last year there was an increase of crime in London of nearly 10 per cent., but I suggest whether the reason of such increase was not that under the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the police were being withdrawn from their legitimate duties for purposes which partake more or less of a political complexion? The moral to be drawn from the whole of the unfortunate controversies between the Secretary of State and successive Chief Commissioners is very plain: it is that the control of the Metropolitan Police should be transferred to the London County Council. It is obvious that mischief results from what I may
    1538
    call this dual control, for it appears tome to be almost a dual control, of the Home Office and Scotland Yard. On the other hand, nothing but good can result from the transfer. Whatever Government may be in power will be relieved from the obstruction to business which Parliamentary discussion of Metropolitan Police matter brings about; but over and above that, I put it mainly on the right of the ratepayers of London to have control similar to that which is exercised by the ratepayers of other large towns—theright to control the civil force they are called upon to pay for.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman has raised a great many questions of importance which, no doubt, will occupy attention, but we must not for the moment pass from the question raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) to which the Home Secretary has made a reply, the condition of the Metropolitan Force as it is to-day. We have just listened to the defence, if I may so call it, of the Secretary of State of his present administration, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will pardon me for saying I regard that defence as both incomplete and inconclusive. We are in a somewhat unfortunate position in this Debate, and I think my right hon. Friend had good ground for complaint. Full notice was given several days ago of the intention of my light hon. Friend to impugn the administration of the police, and why have no Papers been laid before us? The Home Secretary was asked to lay Papers before the House, and he was understood to say he would lay correspondence before the House, but he has not laid one line front that day to this. We have had the letter from Mr. Monro, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, upon which I shall comment shortly, and we know that a statement has appeared in the Press that Mr. Monro did not accept the statement of the Secretary of State as correct, and Mr. Monro stated that when the House is in possession of documents the House will be in a position to form a correct opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that on June 5 there was a Memorandum presented to him by Mr. Monro, embodying the whole of Mr. Monro's objections to the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Why has the House

    1539
    not had that Memorandum? In order to know what Mr. Monro's case is, the House ought to know what that gentleman has said, and said in writing. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can claim that the Memorandum is a confidential document, because the whole relations of the past are altered, and the House of Commons is called upon to express an opinion as to whether the Homo Secretary was justified or not, I will not say in driving things to an issue and to Mr. Monro's resignation, but in accepting Mr. Monro's resignation. So, I say, we ought to have Mr. Monro's statement in writing. The Home Secretary put the resignation of Mr. Monro entirely on the question of superannuation, and if that were the whole question there would be much to say for the right hon. Gentleman's position; but that was not what Mr. Monro said he resigned for. He gave four points in his letter, and the House has a right to know what were the "fair requirements and demands of the police in other important matters"—that is, besides superannuation—to which the Home Secretary would not lend an ear, and in consequence of which the Chief Commissioner resigned. The House is entitled to know what were the points of police administration on which Mr.Monro and the Home Secretary differed, and also the grounds on which Mr. Monro got the impression that Mr.Ruggles-Brise,and not Mr. Howard, was going to be appointed as Assistant Commissioner. There was a conversation in which the right hon. Gentleman says the claims and qualifications of candidates were fully discussed, and I give the right hon. Gentleman the fullest credit for desiring to do the best for the interest of the force, but Mr. Monro says the impression left upon his mind was that Mr. Ruggles-Brise was to be appointed. That is what Mr. Monro said. I do not say he is right; but I do say we are entitled to know all that pissed from first to last, and then we shall know how these differences have arisen. Now, I will say a word or two about the position of the police, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government that this is quite as important a mutter as are many of the questions which the House is now discussing. In fact, I do not know any question of more importance to this
    1540
    House or the Metropolis than the condition of the police, and it is that question which the House has now to consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has criticised the administration of the Metropolitan Police by the Home Secretary, and has said that the Police Force now, for the first time, is in an unsatisfied, discontented, and unsatisfactory state, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not deny one syllable of this assertion. All the right hon. Gentleman did was to justify himself as far as he could. But what is it that the Home Secretary tells us on this head I He simply says he has heard nothing of any dissatisfaction, nor of any meetings; that he believes the police to be perfectly loyal and contented, and he uses some cheering words with regard to the Metropolitan Force. I do not suppose the Home Secretary ever reads so wicked a paper as the Daily News; but I may say that if the right hon. Gentleman has only looked at this morning's copy of that paper he would have seen a statement, which I will bring to the attention of the Committee. It is that—
    "A crowded meeting of Metropolitan Police constables took place last night in order to discuss the grievances of the force. The meeting was in continuation of one that took place and was adjourned a week before, and the proceedings were of a particularly enthusiastic character. All direct references to Mr. Matthews and the Government were greeted with a chorus of groans and cheers."
    I am not going to road the full account of that meeting. I have no doubt there was a discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals; and, when the time comes, we shall be able to see whether or not a good deal may be said for them. But the real point is, that this meeting affords evidence that the police are dissatisfied and discontented, and that they have been holding meetings of which the right hon. Gentleman says he has heard nothing. With regard to superannuation, the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the promises of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. But I must point out that the promises made by my right hon. Friend were embodied in his Bill; and on this point there can be no mistake, for I was at the Home Office up to the time my right hon. Friend left, and I know that, in the Bill he had prepared and brought in in 1885,

    1541
    he gave full expression to his opinion as to what were the just claims of the Metropolitan Police to superannuation. But if, as we are told, Mr. Monro raised objections to the present scheme of the Home Secretary before the Departmental Committee which has investigated the matter, and relied on the Bill of my right hon. Friend, there must have been something in the new proposals very different from those of my right hon. Friend. I have gone over the matter carefully, and I may say that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is practically our Bill; indeed, I may say that I think it is a little better in some important point, probably because the right hon. Gentleman has found the Treasury a little more pliant than we did; but, subject to that remark, the criticism would be merely verbal as between the two schemes, the present superannuation scheme being virtually that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. This being the case, we want to know why it is that Mr. Monro was satisfied with the promises of my right hon. Friend, and yet, when before the Departmental Committee, raised objections to the present scheme, thereby bringing the Departmental Committee to a deadlock. We can see, if we read between the lines, that the Home Secretary wanted to reduce the rates. The point is, however, that the Home Secretary evidently had in contemplation some modification of terms in the public interest. All these things are part of the history of the controversy between Mr. Monro and the Home Secretary, and are no doubt fully set forth in the Memorandum of the 5th June, which, I say, we ought to have laid on the Table of the House. The Home Secretary has told us that nothing could have surprised him more than the resignation of Mr. Monro; but only five minutes later he stated that Mr. Monro had maintained a hostile attitude persistently for several months. This, therefore, was the outcome of a continued line of action.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not use the word "hostile."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER,: Then, Sir, I at once withdraw the word "hostile;" but I made a note at the time of what the right hon. Gentleman did say, and it was
    1542
    "that Mr. Monro's resignation was the-outcome and result of a continued line of action," and, if this were the case, it is difficult to imagine how the resignation should have given so unexpected a shock to the mind of the Home Secretary. But the Home Secretary says there have been difficulties during the last four years as between the Home Office and the police, and when we are dealing with the administration of a force which really amounts to an Army, and with men who are virtually occupying the position of Generals, we may form some idea of the nature of the situation. We must look upon the Home Secretary as the head of that Army, and we find that, under his administration, there have been, during the past four years, strained relations as between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, and the Home Office and the public. The public have been brought into collision with the Metropolitan Police during those four years, but previous to that no such occurrence has been known since the establishment of the Police Force. We all know that Sir Charles Warren was under the necessity of resigning his post not so very long ago, and now his successor, Mr. Monro, feels compelled to take the same step under circumstances which certainly demand the careful attention of the House of Commons. It was the duty of Mr. Monro to represent to the Home Secretary what he believed to be the views and wishes of the force under his command. It was not his duty to dictate, and I cannot understand that ho thought it right for him to settle the basis on which the superannuation, scheme should be arranged. Well, we cannot pass over this question without putting to ourselves the question: why should London differ from Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and the other great towns of England and in the counties? In those places there is no friction between the Government and the police, and the-police are perfectly satisfied to be con trolled and governed by the Representative Bodies in the large Municipalities and counties. What is there in London which should necessitate the placing of the Police Force under a, different system of administration? I know there is in some quarters a feeling which may

    1543
    be illustrated by what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) when he said he should always support, maintain, and defend the existence of an Imperial Police Force in London under what he called Imperial administration; tout I think there is a general opinion that, had the Metropolitan Police been placed under representative control, our minds would have been set at rest with regard to all the questions that have of late arisen.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven indignantly denies that assertion, and I ask him for some ground for his denial; I ask him or any other hon. Member opposite to name one of the large provincial towns in which there has been any collision between the police and the authorities by whom they are controlled. I had the honour of sitting on the Watch Committee of the town with which lam connected for a good many years, and I know that there the the police are able to bring legitimate public opinion to bear on the Governing Body, which is a totally different thing from what may happen in a crisis of this sort, where the police may be drawn—it will be a dangerous matter if they should be'—into political action. I know of nothing which we in this House would more regret—whether in the case of the police, or the civil or military servants of the Crown—than that they should use their position as electors to approach this branch of the Legislature with a view of obtaining certain pecuniary advantages for themselves. These are questions which will arise again and again in this Metropolis until the House fairly faces the position and decides that the police of London shall be in no worse position than are the police of any other locality. I think that this Debate has, at any rate, shown—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying so, as I say it without any disrespect—that there are departments of public administration for which the Home Office is not exceptionally well-fitted. I feel that the present collision between the Home Office and the police is a very unfortunate incident. It is, of
    1544
    course, difficult to apportion the blame, and I am sure the House will not under take to do so without farther information. We ought to have all the papers before us. I would suggest that the best and wisest course the Home Secretary can pursue would be to take steps to relieve the Home Office, as soon as possible, from its present control of the Metropolitan Police, for which, under the circumstances which have arisen, the Home Office has shown itself to be peculiarly unfitted. As far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, I cannot but speak of them with the highest respect, and I repeat that no man has been more generous to them than my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. There is no indisposition on the part of those on this side of the House to do what is fair and just to the police, but we are bound to remember that our public system of pension and superannuation is a very wide system, and that we shall have to deal with other interests than police interests if we grant exceptional privileges to that Department of the Public Service. Undoubtedly the Metropolitan Police ought to be well paid, even better paid than the police elsewhere, because of the special expenditure they are put to, and because of the exceptionally hard duty they have to perform. They are, I think, entitled to a just and fair superannuation allowance. I regard the London police as an exceedingly intelligent Force, and also as a body of men actuated by the highest principles in the performance of the duty devolving upon them in the position in which they are placed. I do not say that in a Force of some 14,000 or 15,000 men there are not a few who will say or do things that are to be regretted, but I believe that, as a whole, they deserve and possess the confidence of the public. When we remember that this great city contains five millions of people, or one million more than the entire population of Scotland, and that it is kept in order by a Force of 15,000 police, I think we I may say that one of the proudest features of our national life is the way in which the peace is preserved in the Metropolis. There is every disposition on this side of the House to deal with the police, not only in the fairest, but also in the most liberal manner, but we do apprehend that there is a public danger in the sustained fric-

    1545
    tion which has been going on between the police and the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not give us papers on the subject, and, as far as we know, at any rate, speaking what is my own opinion, this regrettable resignation on the part of Mr. Monro is not an act which will inflict great loss on the Public Service, for however distinguished may be the gentleman who is to succeed him, I very much doubt whether we shall find anyone better qualified than Mr. Monro to fill his post, while I am quite certain it will be a long time before any new Commissioner will gain the confidence of the Force to the extent that he has done.
    SIR L. PELLY (Hackney, N.): I merely rise for the purpose of saying that, however much we may regret and deplore the loss of the services of Mr. Monro, I cannot refrain from heartily congratulating Her Majesty's Government on the happy selection they have made of a successor to that gentleman in the person of Sir Edward Bradford. I have had the pleasure and the honour of serving with Sir Edward Bradford for many years. We were associated together in the Province of Rajpootana; and I have been more or less directly cognisant of his work under three successive Viceroys, namely, Lord Mayo, Lord Northbrook, and Lord Lytton; and I know that these three Viceroys entertained the highest opinion of Sir Edward Bradford in every respect. I do not desire to draw comparisons, but I may say that I am unable, after 40 years' service, to call to mind any officer of whom I have a higher appreciation in respect of temper, tact, patience, suavity of manner, firmness of mind, experience in the management of the most difficult affairs of the police for the whole of India, and also in regard to the peculiar genius which he has displayed in attracting those with whom he has been associated. He gains the affections of the men who work under him, and carries out his duties in a manner which, as I have already said, is in many of its characteristics unsurpassed. I know how dangerous it is to prophecy, but if I could venture to make a prophecy on this occasion, it would be that Her Majesty's Government will never have cause to
    1546
    regret the appointment of Sir Edward Bradford to the post of Chief Commissioner. I am sure he will endear himself in a short time to his subordinates, that he will thoroughly understand the work he has to do, and that he will bring to bear upon it an experience which will prove of the greatest value to the service of the Metropolis.
    MR. JAMES STUART: I am sure we were all glad to hear the satisfactory testimony which has just been given to the ability of the gentleman who has just received the appointment of Chief Commissioner. But the question really is, how long is Sir Edward Bradford likely to retain the post now that he has been appointed? If he is at all like his predecessors he will go through what has come to be a uniform process. He will get into more and more difficulty and friction with the Home Office until some point, trivial or important, will inevitably arise, when the friction will become so great that he will be unable to bear the strain any longer, and his relations with the Home Office will come to an end. That is the history not only of one Chief Commissioner, but of two, namely, Sir Charles Warren and Mr. Monro, the gentleman who has just retired. The Home Secretary has made a most unsatisfactory reply to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. He has dwelt in the main on one single point in relation to Mr. Monro, namely, his dealing with the superannuation question, but I would remind the Committee that Mr. Monro has drawn attention to a long series of difficulties respecting the administration of the police and the proposed legislation, and we on this side have a right to know what these difficulties are, because that is in reality the gravamen of the whole matter. The question is, What have been the continued relations between the Home Office and the Commissioners of Police? To all appearance they have been such as to render it practically impossible that the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner could work together in peace, and where that is the case, there is, of course, an end to all good government. That would seem to be the state of things at present. Well, then, Mr. Courtney, we want to know whose fault is this. There have

    1547
    been two very different individuals occupying the post of Chief Commissioner, and only one man who, at the same time, has occupied the position of Home Secretary, and yet in the case of each Commissioner the same sort of difficulty has occurred. Perhaps after we have lived through another series of troubles between the Home Office and the gentleman who has just been appointed, we may then be able to come to the root of the difficulty. Very little sympathy was expressed by the Home Secretary for the difficulties connected with the Metropolitan Police. There can be little doubt that they have grievances to complain of at the present moment—distinct grievances from a money point of view. Doubtless a good Superannuation Bill is desired by them, and I think they have a right to it. Why, then, cannot the Home Secretary carry out some satisfactory measure? It is because he has not got the money. But why cannot he get the money? That seems to be his chief difficulty, and in order to get over it he resorts to a "juggle." He has to obtain the means of creating a Superannuation Fund, but he does not wish to do this by a direct increase of taxation, and, therefore, he wants to exclude from that Superannuation Fund a certain amount which has hitherto gone into it, in order that he may be able to provide for the contemplated increase of the Police Force, By obtaining money for what he calls a Superannuation Fund, and not using it for Superannuation purposes, he thinks he will be able to get what ho requires for increasing the Police Force, which is now growing at a greater rate than the rateable value of the Metropolis. This is a state of things which contrasts unfavourably with what is going on in the large towns in the other parts of the Kingdom, where the increase of the police is in a smaller ratio than the increase of rateable value. But, I ask, why cannot the Home Secretary be content to obtain the necessary funds in a direct way? It is because he would have to come to this House for a Bill which would make the Metropolitan Police Bate greater than 9d. in the £1, and he dare not do this, because, in so doing, he would be placing a hindrance in the way of public; business, and because he would be dealing with the £1,500,000 of money obtained
    1548
    from the people of London in a way in which the money raised from the taxpayers in no other part of the country is dealt with. The result is that the Home Secretary, unable to appeal to the-House of Commons, because of the hindrance to public business at a time when there are more important matters to attend to, has had, as I have said, to resort to a "juggle" in order to obtain the means. But if the Government would only consent to the-placing of the Metropolitan Police under the control of the County Council, all this difficulty would disappear. If the County Council had charge of the police they would have plenty of time, by means of Committees, to manage the affairs of that body. I know that the County Council is already full of work; but it is not nearly as heavily worked as the House of Commons, and in the control of the police the County Council would have one of its principal duties. I think it a great pity that we should be under the necessity of discussing this question as we have been doing to-night; but we are obliged to consider the matter, because there is no other body having power to deal with it. I am, however, glad that this discussion has taken place, if for no other reason than that this "kick-up" between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police has called forth the declarations we have-heard from the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Derby and Wolverhampton. We know now for certain that these right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to place the control of the Metropolitan Police, under proper restrictions, in the-hands of the County Council, as the representatives of the people of London. I certainly think that this is the only arrangement which would put an end not only to the pecuniary difficulty, but also to the friction which arises between the police and the people in this Metropolis, and which does not arise in any other town. We have in London a discontented police and a controlling administration with which they are at variance. If you go to the other large towns of England you have neither the one nor the other. I believe that we in this House, on both sides, have the greatest respect and admiration for the Metropolitan Police. We on this side, at any rate, think that they ought to be

    1549
    better treated; but we complain of the way in which they are managed at the Home Office. We object to the irresponsibility of that management, and we desire to see such a change as will tend in the future to a better state of things.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID: I have always thought that one of the greatest difficulties any Government has to deal with is the question of wages in the case of the large staff of men employed in the various Departments of the Public Service, and that is one of the reasons why I have been opposed to extension of the trade part of the Government work. A claim has been put forward for the presentation of papers, but I do not see how any papers would throw greater light on this matter than is now possessed by the Committee. I think I can see clearly what the actual position is. Mr. Monro, with whom I have had the advantage of being in contact on various occasions, is a man of strong and determined character, and if he does not always have his own way I believe he is a little mistaken in thinking that the responsibility will fall on him. It strikes me that Mr. Monro has a little misunderstood the situation. He was certainly right in representing to the Home Secretary, as strongly as possible, his views with regard to the payment of the men, and with reference to superannuation and other matters connected with the Police Force; but the decision on these things was a matter resting with the Home Secretary, because he is the person on whom the ultimate responsibility must rest. I cannot but think that Mr. Monro made a mistake in sending: in his resignation as he did, and that, but for his precipitate action, a solution of the difficulties that had arisen might have been found. With regard to what has been said about the Metropolitan Police, I have, during the last few days, endeavoured to inform myself on that subject, and I must say that I do not think they are a discontented body. On the contrary, I believe they have always been loyal and ready to do their duty. What they now desire is that their claims should be laid before Parliament, and, as far as I am concerned (although on one point I do not quite agree with them), I think there is much to be said for the views they hold. At
    1550
    the present moment every metropolitan policeman may enter the service at any age above 18; but the pension which is proposed by the Bill is only to count from the age of 21. The complaint of the police is that they are subject to—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Baronet is justified in entering into an examination of the Bill.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID: I did not moan to refer to the Bill, and the reference I made was accidental. I can, however, explain the complaints of the police without reference to the Bill. What they complain of with regard to the present situation is, that as far as the existing system goes they are only superannuated when they arrive at the age of 60, or previous to that upon a medical certificate. The demand is that they should be superannuated after 25 years' service, irrespective of the fact that they enter the service at the age of 18, 19, 20, or 21. Now, a good deal may be said with regard to this claim, and I would venture to point out that a medical officer who passes a man at 19 considers he is as fully capable of performing the duties of a metropolitan constable as a man of 21. It appears to me that—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Baronet is travelling a little wide of the question.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID: Then, Mr. Courtney, I will go to another point. In any arrangement with regard to the position of the police, as to which they say they have reasonable ground for complaint, it is quite right that the other side, namely, the metropolitan ratepayers, should be considered. Of course, we all know that the metropolitan rates have been steadily rising, and the ratepayers should not have burdens cast upon them which they cannot fairly be called upon to bear. But I believe Parliament will not have much difficulty in dealing with the matter, and that the police are prepared to discuss in the most generous spirit any claims which they may make upon the liberality of Parliament. But, at the same time, I think the leaders of the police should show, as I believe they will, a sense of moderation in the demands they make. I think most of us are inclined to agree that they should be properly remunerated and fairly superannuated. With regard to

    1551
    another point, which is one of considerable importance, I desire to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman below me has said the public are frequently brought into collision with the police. Well, I may say that I have often, attended demonstrations of various kinds, and what has struck me has been the very reverse of this. I have constantly had occasion to notice a kindly feeling as between the public and the police, which was really surprising. Living near Hyde Park, I have over and over again taken part in the public demonstrations held there, not as a demonstrator, but as an observer, and I have over and over again seen groups of people talking in a friendly way with the police, and sometimes complimenting them on the good feeling they have shown. Instead of the public being brought into collision with the police they have appeared to be on the most friendly terms with them As far as the police are concerned there is this to be remembered—during the past two years, demonstrations and strikes of all kinds have taken place, and the Metropolitan Police have had to work very hard. A man has had to leave his home at 6 o'clock in the morning, and does not get home until 2 or 3 the following morning. That is very long and very hard labour, and I think the police perform it with the greatest tamper and judgment. Consequently, the metropolitan ratepayers and the public at large owe a great debt to the police, who have taken this large burden upon them selves. At the time of the dock strike, for instance, a very large number of policemen were engaged. There was no ill-feeling between the strikers and the police; only, as a matter of course, when a large number of men congregate, it is the duty of the authorities to see that a sufficient number of police attend to prevent any disturbance. Nothing occurred of a hostile nature between the police and the strikers, and, in my opinion, both' classes did themselves credit. I believe the Home Secretary has no desire but to meet the wishes of the men, as far as he can, with due regard to the interests of the metropolitan ratepayers; and as far as Mr. Monro's resignation is concerned, I must say it was Mr. Monro's own fault, and not that of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.): I think the hon. Baronet who has just sat down has put a wrong construction on what was said about friction between the police and the public. Every speaker this afternoon has been particular to say that he had no fault whatever to find with the rank and file of the police. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Derby was not with regard to the constable or the officer, but with regard to the higher authorities having the direction of the Force. It is owing to the action of the authorities at Scotland Yard and the Home Office that you have had continued friction between the police and the people during the last four years. I shall not put myself forward as so great an authority on demonstrations as the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pan-eras, though I have taken part in a few, not as a mere onlooker, but as an active demonstrator. And I have taken part in them over a long period of years, and never has there been friction on account of the conduct of the men; it has always arisen because of the orders of their superiors. I have only to go back to the 7th of this month, when I saw the police so administered, that while they were put to the greatest inconvenience themselves, they were the cause of the greatest inconvenience to the public. With other hon. Members I have taken some trouble to ascertain what are the feelings of the Metropolitan Police, and at the proper time, when the Bill of the Government is brought forward, it will be found that more than one of the Metropolitan Members are prepared to discuss the demands of the Metropolitan Police, and to See that they are justly met. The hon. Baronet has settled the whole question between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, at least to his own satisfaction. The hon. Baronet says he knows the qualities of Mr. Monro, and he knows he is virtually in the wrong. But I must say that the position of the Home Secretary would be very much strengthened if the whole of the Papers were in our hands, so that we might see exactly what has taken place between the Home Secretary and Mr. Monro. If Mr. Monro has acted in this very heated manner, that the hon. Baronet would have us believe, the case of the Home Office

    1553
    would have been very much strengthened if the right hon. Gentleman had put into our hands that memorandum of the 5th of July, and the whole Report of the Departmental Committee to which the Home Secretary referred. We have reached the 20th of June, and we have not yet had circulated the Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police for last year. I may be told that last year we had it, but that was because I. persistently put questions to the First Lord of the Treasury that we should have this Report before the Debate took place on the Police Vote. We did get it, true, but under a new system. It had been added to the year before, but a great deal of valuable information was cut out on this occasion. I think a great number of the Members who have listened to the Debate this evening must be thoroughly dissatisfied with the defence made on behalf of the Home Office. It is very characteristic that not one of the independent Members has spoken in support of the Government excepting in a very general manner. I am not going to set up as a judge of who is right and who is wrong-in the dispute between Mr. Matthews and Mr. Monro I have no evidence in my possession to enable me to do so, and I think the Home Secretary, in withholding Papers and information, has acted in a way which will not commend itself to this House. We are told by the Home Secretary that the relations between himself and Mr. Monro were so happy that his resignation came as a cloud on a summer's day. The only piece of evidence we have had, and on which we are bound to take our stand, is what the Home Secretary has j chosen to give us in the letter which he read. All we can do is to keep referring him to the fact that in this letter Mr. Monro tendered his resignation, and continually refers to other things besides superannuation and the appointment of the Assistant Commissioner. We want a more direct statement from the Home Secretary than we have had as to the real relation between the Home Office and the police. We have had two Chief Commissioners since the right hon. Gentleman assumed office. One was not his appointment, but the other was. There has been friction, and we shall continue to have friction until a reason-
    1554
    able course is pursued with regard to the police of London. I at once traverse the statement of the Home Secretary, that so long as you have a large body of police in London it is necessary that they should be controlled by the Home Office. We have evidence of the failure of the Home Office in the strained relations between the authorities and the police, which would never have grown up in any provincial town, where members of the Watch Committee come into personal contact with the police, and ascertain their wants and wishes. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons does not want to control the police. It is not supposed that hon. Members coming here for Imperial purposes can be deeply interested in the question of the control of the Metropolitan Police Force. They know that these matters are administered by the Local Authorities in the country, and when they come here to discuss serious and important questions, they do not want to have their time wasted on discussions as-to right of way, or some subject of purely local interest, and that, perhaps, possessing interest to only a few of the 670 Members. Notwithstanding, we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having done more than any other Home Secretary to show how bad are the relations between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, and how impossible it is that the present system can continue much longer. My Colleagues have a Bill which in the result may be assisted by the action of the right hon. Gentleman. We contend that if the ratepayers had the control of the police, the Force would be more economically administered than by the central authority. I looked over the Local Government Returns the other day, and I find that the cost of the London police, notwithstanding their inadequate pay and unsatisfactory superannuation, is in excess of the cost incurred by the large provincial towns. The Metropolitan Police serve an area in which there are two Corporations, the whole of one county, and parts of four other counties. The two Municipalities at present policed by the Metropolitan Force, lose control over £13,352 out of the total expended on the police in respect of their own district.

    1555
    West Ham loses control of £11,924; Hertford of £4,144; Kent £10,419; London £457,765; Middlesex £53,519; Surrey £22,000; Croydon £10,000. These figures are exceedingly interesting, as snowing, because of their excess over the expenditure in provincial places, that the people of London are placed in a very invidious position compared with the inhabitants of large provincial towns. The argument is used that large buildings, like the Houses of Parliament and other national structures, must be protected. That is a concession which has been made in every Bill brought before the House. Everyone knows, and no one wishes it to be otherwise, that the Home Secretary or some Member of the Government should have under his control a body of men to watch Imperial buildings and national places, and co do the work of the dockyards, at present done by members of the Metropolitan Police. You would have then a much smaller body under one authority than you have at present. You have 15,000 policemen under one central authority. Why not adopt the principle of popular control of the police? But there is another point I wish to enforce this evening. We want a clear answer from the Home Secretary to the question I put the other day as to the addition of 1,000 police to the Force. I believe 700 have already been appointed. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he is going to get the money for these 1,000 men? We want him to dispute, if he can, that he is going to put the £150,000 obtained under the Local Taxation Bills into the revenue of the police, though there is at the same time a deficit of £145,000 in the Superannuation Fund. If you do this, and I do not see from what other source you are going to get your money, then you will virtually impose on the people of London an extra rate, while evading the Statute, which would necessitate your appealing to this House for power to increase the present rate of 9d. You are evading by this means a discussion of the whole question of the Metropolitan Police on the Second Reading of a Bill. We are thus debarred from bringing before the people of London the whole question of the cost of administration of the London Police. Many of us think the cost excessive,

    1556
    not because we think the police I are paid too highly, but because the money is frittered away on high salaries on some of the chiefs who are not required. You may tell me that I am simply making an assertion, but it is an assertion you do not give us an opportunity of discussing. I do not know whether it is worth while taking up other questions in connection with the Police Force. There are many other minor questions that we should like to discuss, had it not been for the grave and important crisis which has arisen between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, and which must now engage the attention of the House. I do think, in all seriousness, that the Home Secretary ought to give us a more clear and definite statement than he has made. If we cannot accept his statement our justification is that the Home Secretary has failed to give us the Papers which he promised, and the means whereby we adjudge of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. If we cannot give him a verdict of not guilty, the blame is on his side for having kept the House in ignorance of the information at his disposal.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I am unwilling to give a silent vote on the very important Metropolitan question that has come before us, for two reasons. The first is, that as a Metropolitan Member, I have the honour to represent a very large population very much interested in all that concerns the efficiency of the police of the Metropolis; and, secondly, I have had the pleasure for many years of being the friend and colleague of the distinguished gentleman who has, to my sorrow, recently resigned the position of Chief Commissioner of Police. I may say that I came down to the House this afternoon with a perfectly open mind on the merits of the unfortunate differences of opinion that have taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the late Chief Commissioner; but I must say this, also, that I came down with the full determination that, if necessary, I would speak or vote against the Government, if I found that any unfair or improper imputations were made against a gentleman of the character of my

    1557
    old friend Mr. Monro. But, Sir, I am bound to say that after I had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and to the other speeches from the other side of the House, the general impression left on my mind was that Mr. Monro had been guilty of, it any rate, a certain amount of insubordination to his official Parliamentary superior. I believe that I express the general opinion of the House when I assert that no insubordination of any kind can be tolerated in the Chief Commissioner of Police towards the Home Secretary But I go far beyond that and I say I am certain from my own knowledge of Mr. Monro that there is no one who would sooner repudiate the idea than Mr. Monro himself. The communication from Mr. Monro, which has been read in this House, shows that he was absolutely incapable of the conduct which has been imputed to him—at least by implication—in some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What did he say in that letter? Why, he spoke of his position when he found himself differing in some important points from his official superior. He said he felt it would not be fair to himself or the Government for him to remain and discuss the merits of this question as a medium between the Government and the Police. He declared that he had no wish whatever to trench on the prerogative of the Secretary of State, and I think that his conduct has shown that that is the case. I greatly regret that lie should have felt bound to resign, but in doing so I maintain that he has shown himself utterly incapable of the insubordinate conduct that has been imputed to him by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this occasion. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green admitted—and I am glad to bear the admission—that in matters of policy the Chief Commissioner of Police should be entirely subordinate to the Secretary of State, and so. I submit, Mr. Monro showed himself to be when, he found that in his opinion whether rightly or wrongly I am not going to discuss he could not act up to that high standard of official duty, and he felt it to be the right course to resign. With regard to the difference of opinion which has been expressed as to the details of the superannuation scheme,
    1558
    that scheme I take it is to come before the House on another occasion, and a full opportunity will be given for discussion. That will be the time to discuss the proposals of the Secretary of State. I am free to confess that as at present I see this proposal, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make some slight further concessions. I think there are some points—especially in regard to the two-thirds pension after 25 years' service—on which further concession might well be made. It does not seem to me that the matter is a very important one, so far as expense to the community is concerned; whilst, on the other hand, it is a matter on which the Force seem to have set their hearts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) told us—and I am bound to admit that there was a great deal of force in what he said—that we have to consider the ratepayers on this question as much as, or more even, than the Police Force. He implied that there are more ratepayers than policemen, and that is very true. The point is one well worthy of being discussed in the House when the time comes; but it seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will take the advice tendered to him to-night and will submit the financial question to a Select Committee, chosen impartially from all sides of the House, both the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on the one hand, and financial reformers like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton on the other, will loyally accept the decision arrived at. I cordially concur in what fell from the hon. Baronet opposite in regard to the friendly feeling which exists, and which is shown on the occasion of every great demonstration, between the Police Force and the great masses of the population of London. I was present at the recent demonstration as an observer, and I have attended in the same way many great demonstrations, and I must say I have always seen the kindliest and friendliest relations prevailing between the people and the police. There is a common catch say ring in use at this time: "If you want to know the time, ask a policeman." That phrase exactly expresses the feeling which exists when our poorest citizens want to know the time or anything else, they

    1559
    go and ask a policeman. I would endorse in the strongest terms I can command the opinion expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hackney, as to the pre-eminent qualifications of the gentleman whom the Home Secretary has chosen-to fill the place of Mr. Monro. I had the pleasure and honour of serving for years in association with Sir Edward Bradford. He was at the head of the Department for the suppression of Thuggee and dacoity—a Department which takes the place of the secret police and the Force for putting down highway robbery and robbery with violence in England—and in that capacity, and indeed in every other capacity in which he has served, he has earned the most entire respect, confidence and admiration of every one with whom lie has been associated.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: The case which has been presented to the House is one as to which it may appear presumptuous in one who is not a Metropolitan Member to say a few words, but I do so because I have given a great deal of attention to this question. We have heard the case against the Home Secretary put by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Wolverhampton in a very forcible and moderate manner; but I am bound to say from all that I have read and heard on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary was absolutely and completely justified in the course he took with reference to Mr Monro. No doubt Mr. Monro was an able officer with a high sense of responsibility; but his position by Act of Parliament was one of absolute and complete subordination to the Home Secretary. And no one can doubt that Mr. Monro—to put it in the least offensive manner possible—was not very agreeable to the control of the Home Office. I do not say this from any personal knowledge of the relations between him and the Home Office, but from the circumstances reported in the newspapers which are common to all of us. The Home Secretary thought he was going as far as Parliamentary usage and a due regard to the public purse justified him in the proposals he intended to make with regard to the superannuation of the police, and having regard to the various Superannuation Acts, I think the Home
    1560
    Secretary has gone to the extreme of liberality. Some of us who are not Metropolitan Members will have something to say as to that when the time comes, and, perhaps, I may suggest, somewhat cynically, that it does not sound very well for Radical Members to come forward with such profuse expressions of benevolence to the police, and pointing to the public funds as the means of giving effect to that benevolence. We know that what the police require is, first, that the scale of pensions should be more liberal; secondly, that their wages-should be increased; and, thirdly, that they should have better allowances for extra work, and so forth. It seems to me that the Committee can come to no other conclusion than that the Home Secretary only acted consistently with his duty to the House in refusing to be dictated to by a subordinate officer. If he had adopted any other attitude, and Parliament had assented, you would have had all Chiefs of Departments at the disposal and dictation of their permanent officials. As to Mr. Ruggles-Brise, it seems to me very curious that the Chief Commissioner should attempt to dictate-to his Parliamentary Chief as to who should be appointed Assistant Commissioner. Besides, Mr. Monro's objection was not a valid one. He objected to the-appointment of Mr. Ruggles-Brise because he had had no previous police experience, but the same argument might have been used in the case of Mr. Bruce, who has-made a most efficient Assistant Commissioner. I think it would be wise to-avoid making Party capital out of what are, after all, Constitutional questions; for it is a Constitutional question of some-importance that the House should maintain the authority of the Home Secretary. I do not think that the Home Secretary has enforced, since the rupture with Mr. Monro, that discipline which ought to be maintained in the-Police Force. It is not in accordance with the practice of Public Departments that the officia's of a Department should be allowed to meet, in the circumstances, attending the police meetings, for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear upon their chief. In the Times I have seen, the remarkable statement that if it had not been for Mr. Monro the sergeants inspectors, and superintendents would

    1561
    have continued as heretofore to keep aloof from the agitation of the ranks. I hold it to be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see not only that pressure is not brought to bear on him or on the public generally, but that it is not brought to bear on Members of Parliament in the discharge of their functions.
    MR. SCHWANN: I rise to support the contention that the control of the police should be handed over to the local County Councils, and of the Metropolitan Police to the London County Council, and I would support that by referring to my experience in the City of Manchester. The control of the police there is in the hands of the Local Council and their able Chief Constable, Mr. Malcolm Wood. There is not the slightest fear there of any procession or public demonstration taking an objectionable form. I am afraid we cannot say the same thing of London, having regard to the questions which have been raised in the matter of using Trafalgar Square for meetings, and the breaking up by the police of various demonstrations; and we all know that the period of office of a Chief Commissioner for the past few years has not been longer than two years. It is singular to note what a different state of things prevails in oar large provincial towns. In Manchester, on the occasion of the meetings of the unemployed recently, many of the people came from a distance outside the town, and they desired to assemble in the principal square of the city. That, however, would have been inconvenient, seeing that the square was traversed by tram lines, so the police opened their own large yard to the people who held their meetings there, and there made their protests and demanded their rights. At these meetings reporters of the local papers were present, which gave publicity to their complaints. The result was that after a couple of meetings they satisfied their minds, they cleared their breasts from "perilous stuff," and became content to let matters take their ordinary course. I think it is advisable that the police should be under the direction of the London Municipal Bodies. We know that the London County Council has shown marked ability in the
    1562
    administration of affairs for the last two years, and I think it most advisable that the control of the Metropolitan Police should be confided to them.
    MR. G. HOWELL: I should like the Committee to bear in mind that very recently a Bill was carried through this Houser mostly by the pressure of hon. Gentleman opposite, for the enfranchisement of the police. Yet, in the face of that, we are told they are not to meet to discuss their grievances. To my mind, it is an absolute farce to give men the right of voting and to deny them the right of free discussion. It seems to me they had a right to meet and discuss the provisions of a Bill that will affect their future prospects, and to-make known through their officers their objections to it. In saying this I am not at all supporting the idea of the police officers of the Metropolis binding themselves together at public meetings under leaders who may lead them to destruction. That is, however, a very different thing from being permitted to discuss-the provisions of the Bill. I think no provision that may be made for superannuation will make up for the smallness-of the pay given to the Metropolitan Police. Hon. Members on both sides have been very profuse in their acknowledgments of the services rendered by the police officers of the Metropolis to the public. I would also bear testimony to the same effect if there was any need for my doing so. It seems to me, however, to be an absolute farce to talk about the way in which these men perform their duty, and, at the same time, to give them a miserable pittance which is scarcely up to the level of what a day labourer would have. I would make superannuation something contingent upon good behaviour, length of service, and things of that kind. I think a man should have sufficient pay, and; that it should be his duty to save out of his earnings sufficient to keep him in old? age. There might be exceptions to this; but, speaking as a general rule, I do not believe in superannuation allowances. I believe in paying a man a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and I think that will prove, in the long run, to be better-than the superannuation system. I do not wish to say anything with regard to

    1563
    the gentleman who I presume has been appointed to the post of Chief Commissioner, but I am afraid we are going to make the same mistake as we have been making over and over again by appointing a military man Governor of a civil force. That has been the cause of the collisions in this Metropolis between the police and the people, and the people and the Home Office, for many years past. We do not want our Police Force to be under military regulation. It is not by any means a military force, and it will be a bad day for England, and for this Metropolis particularly, when, if ever, it is made into anything like a military force. If the Home Office wants a military command in the Metropolis, it should hand over the command of the police to the Horse Guards or the War Office. I want to see collisions between the police and the people avoided; and I think they can only be avoided in two ways, first of all, by getting rid absolutely of the military element, and, secondly, by handing over the control of the police to the proper local authority, namely the County Council. (8.29.)
    CAPTAIN VERNEY,rose—
    (9.0.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    CAPTAIN VERNEY: I cannot join in the general chorus in praise of the police, and indeed I venture to think that the police have very decidedly deteriorated of late years. Since I was elected a member of the County Council, I have taken some (trouble in going about to different parts of London, to specially note the attitude 'of the police, and I will venture to say that, during the last 10 years or more, since I have known the police, their conduct in remote parts of London has not been civil and courteous to the public at large. Many instances of this have come under my personal observation. I know nothing is to be gained by quoting individual cases, but I give the Committee my distinct impression which may be accepted for what it is worth. As to myself, wherever I am known, I am treated with the greatest respect and attention by the police; but the police
    1564
    should not discharge their duties as the servants of the few who are known in public life, but they should remember they are the servants of the public at large, and in that sense I do not think that the conduct of the police is satisfactory. I had the grief and sorrow of seeing from a very safe place the conduct of the police on the day of the Trafalgar Square riots, and it was sad to witness. I am not going to apportion the blame to the processionists or to the police, but I do not think such a thing had been seen in London before, or in any of our large towns, within living memory. I do not think there is a parallel case of the police, who are the servants of the public, attacking the people, not merely in pursuance of orders preventing the people from passing, but breaking away from their position to attack members of the procession, smashing band instruments, and destroying-flags. These proceedings I saw with my own eyes, and I do not think the people of London, after such proceedings, can ever regard the police as they did before, a feeling was then excited, which is to be lamented as a misfortune. It is my opinion, then, that the police of London have of late years not improved, but deteriorated in general attitude and tone towards the general population of London, and I wish to add a word or two as to the control of the Metropolitan Police. I am quite sure that the noble Marquess (Lord Carmarthen), the Member for Brixton, has not a chance of being returned as Member for that constituency again unless he is in favour of police control being placed in the hands of the County Council. This is only my opinion, but it is founded upon my knowledge of what the feeling in that constituency is as its representative in the London County Council. I know that there is the strongest feeling there in this direction among Liberals and Conservatives alike. Something has been said about the police not being in a proper state of discipline, and I think the Committee will see that while there is a doubt in the minds of the police as to who their masters are, and are likely to be, this in itself tends much to shake the discipline of the force; but now that Members on the Front Opposition Bench have declared in favor of County Council control, no

    1565
    doubt this must have an effect on the minds of the police. I can speak from experience as to the change in two counties where I happen to be a Magistrate. In Anglesey there has been a very marked change in the attitude of the police since control has been transferred to the Joint Committee, since the County Council have had a voice in the government. I have no doubt the Government know perfectly well that they cannot, that they dare not, employ the police in Wales to enforce the collection of tithes. The County Councils would not allow it and it cannot possibly be done. You may pass what Bills you like, you may make what arrangements you please, you may send troops, but you cannot employ the police to collect tithes, because the County Councils will not have it done. The attitude of the police in Anglesey is the attitude of servants of the public, and that is the difference between provincial police and the London Police. Anybody who has anything to do with the police in Anglesey will find them acting as the respected and trusted servants of the public; but that is not, I am sorry to say the attitude of the police in London. There is a feeling among the population of London that the police are trying to be their masters, and undoubtedly there is a sort of affectation of superiority of position about the police that is to be deplored. I regret the change in the police uniform, which abolished the old form of the civilian hat they used to wear, which was a symbol of the civilian character of the Force, that though charged with special duties they are not our masters, but our servants and assistants. I sometimes sit on the Magisterial Bench in Buckingham. We have there a very Tory County Council and Joint Committee, and more than once in public from the Bench I have had to complain of the attitude of the police towards witnesses and prisoners in Court, an arrogant and overbearing demeanour, inconsistent with their official position, and which ought not to be tolerated. I have no doubt at all that the London County Council will before long have the control of the police. I do not think there can be any doubt of that after the expression of opinion from the Front Bench on this
    1566
    side, and when that change comes I anticipate there will be no difficulties with the police, but perfectly harmonious action. From no county in England and Wales have there been complaints of the efficacy of the police since control passed to the Joint Committees, and I do not think there is any reason to complain of the Watch Committee in any borough. I look forward, then, to the perfect efficiency of the police, harmony of action, and absence of friction under the control of the London County Council in preserving peace and order in the streets of the Metropolis.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish I had had the opportunity of speaking more immediately after the statement of the Home Secretary. I listened very attentively to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and, if he will allow me to say so, I admired his fine forensic effort, while I congratulated myself to some extent that I was not one of a jury to be influenced by what he will excuse me for calling the special pleading with which he favoured us. This question we are now discussing, and which I, for one, regret, should occupy the attention of an Imperial Parliament holding the view which has generally been expressed on this side that it is a matter for the London Local Authority. This matter we are now discussing is not merely one of the quarrels and dissensions between the Home Secretary and his various Chief Commissioners. I am not greatly concerned, however many of the latter resign, nor should I be very much concerned if the right hon. Gentleman himself resigned. I frankly add that I should not entertain greater anxiety or cherish greater hope in regard to any right hon. Gentleman from this side of the House who might succeed the right hon. Gentleman in the office if all went well. These are matters of little importance beside the grave importance of the fact that discontent exists among the force responsible for the peace and safety of the Metropolis. Now, the Home Secretary—and I am bound to say he did it admirably well-tried to minimise this feeling among the police, and, to some extent, he succeeded in diverting the attention of some Members of the Committee-not of all, I

    1567
    am glad to say, who have taken part in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has deprecated and denied statements founded upon reports in the newspapers, and wishes us to believe, in fact, that the agitation we hear about is manufactured by newspapers. Now, we know that newspapers—or some of them—when short of "copy" especially, are apt to insert matter that does not stand the test of close examination; but I can hardly believe it possible, when we read reports in all sorts of newspapers of every political complexion, newspapers differing in tone, such as the Standard, Daily News, Telegraph, and Globe, and when we find everyone of these newspapers, most of which, I presume, are fairly independent, has a full and succinct account of proceedings at meetings which have taken place among members of the Police Force in reference to their grievances, and the dismissal of Mr. Monro, I cannot but think that the Home Secretary "doth protest too much" when he tries to make us believe that these troubles are manufactured by the newspaper. I find in the Globe, which is considered to be a Conservative newspaper, a full report of a meeting which took place last night. Now, no one can accuse the Globe of being an exceedingly revolutionary newspaper; it does not, so far as I am aware, suggest the abolition of the bourgeois in five and twenty minutes, or to nationalise our means of production; it is a newspaper, I suppose, whose reports may fairly be relied upon. I find in the Globe's report of yesterday's meeting that 160 constables drove to the meeting in vans, and that they were addressed by various speakers. I am well aware that some of these speakers are members of the "Social Democratic Federation," a body with which I am in no way connected, but I suppose they have as good a right to address a police meeting as any other persons, though I find the meeting was not only addressed by members of the "Social Democratic Federation," but by other gentlemen of position, and by members of the force; that they discussed questions at some length; and that after the meeting was over 40 or 50 policemen went away cheering for the "Policeman's Union," and expressing great dissatisfaction with the conduct of
    1568
    the Home Office officials. Let me show what it was this meeting of policemen demanded yesterday. A resolution was carried as follows:—
    "That this meeting of constables of Metropolitan Police demand (1) That an increase of pay of 3s. per week be given to each class. 2) That each man be entitled to advancement in class at two and live years' service. (3) What one day's have per week be granted. (4) That police court time and extra duty be allowed in full. (5) That P. C. 's be entitled to 10 days' leave annually. (6) That one-third of pay he the minimum of pension on completion of 15 years' service, increasing proportionately to two-thirds of pay after 24 years' service. (7) That each man be entitled to claim his superannuation on completion of 24 years' service."
    I will not enter upon details which will be far more properly discussed upon the Police Superannuation Bill; but what I wish to point out, and what I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee, is the fact that the condition of the present relations between the Police Force and the Home Office is such as to create grave danger to the safety of the Metropolis. It is absolutely, I think, a matter that admits of no argument at all, that you have a large body of some 14,000 or 15,000 men upon whom the onerous duty is laid of protecting persons and property in the Metropolis day after day and night after night; it is absolutely impossible they can exercise that duty properly if they are in a state of what I must characterise as semi-revolt against the authorities. I wish the Home Secretary clearly to understand that dissatisfaction in this instance, so far as I am aware, has not been promoted by agitators. I know that the right hon. Gentleman entertains a distrust of agitators, and that, founded or unfounded, that feeling of distrust exists in the country; but, arguing from the existence of this distrust, the case is much stronger when I assert, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot contradict the assertion that there has been no intervention of agitators to account for the strained relations of the police and their superior office to the Home Office control. If, therefore, this dissatisfaction arises from among the Police Force itself, it seems clear to me that either the Home Office has not sufficient time or opportunity to exercise due supervision over such an important

    1569
    body as the Metropolitan Police Force such as should be exercised; or that the just claims of the force have been ignored. I am not going exactly to uphold Mr. Monro against the Home Secretary for the very cogent reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury that we have not the correspondence in our hands which would enable us to take a full view of the case. I am not one of those who think that in all cases the Chief Commissioner should be backed against the Home Secretary. Bad as I think the system is which places the supervision of the London Police Force in the hands of the Home Secretary, I think that a state of things which placed absolute power in the hands of a Chief Commissioner without duo supervision of the Home Secretary, and therefore the influence which debate in Parliament exercises, would be absolutely untenable, and no sensible man can for a moment contemplate it with equanimity. On this occasion, and in reference to police control, I do not entirely take the side with Mr. Monro or against him, but I do lament that in the choice of Mr. Monro's successor a most unfortunate selection should have been made of a gentleman half of whose record is a military one. We have been told by hon. Gentlemen on the other side that he has been most diligent and successful in the detection of Thuggee and dacoity; but these are crimes which, if I am well informed, are not very prevalent in this Metropolis. Further, I understand this gentleman was for a long time Resident in Rajpootana. Now, the Rajpoots are, ethnologically, a highly interesting race of the highest caste in India, though I wish to do others no injustice. But what are the functions of a Resident in Rajpootana? In this State, I believe, there is an admirable art school. There may be found large quantities of elephants, and I believe some very skilful Nautch girls. Upon these and other matters a resident may form his judgment, and has to make representations to the Sultan of the country; and I believe this particular gentleman—whose name for the moment has escaped me, but which I daresay in future I may remember accurately—has had vast experience in matters that appertain to
    1570
    Court life in Rajpootana; but I utterly fail to see how such experience gives him qualifications for such different and delicate duties as are involved in the position of Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. It has been urged by hon. Members on this side, and notably by one who holds the position of County Councillor, that the only way out of these difficulties—difficulties that appear to be arising perpetually, if we may judge by the short tenures of office by Chief Commissioners—can be obviated by transferring control to a popularly-elected body, the County Council; and various Members have referred to the good effect that has accrued in provincial towns where recourse has been had to such a system. But hon. Members have forgotten one especial fact in this connection, that when there was an election of County Councils, some 18 months ago, it was made a test question in many cases, invariably, I believe, in the case of Progressive members, that they should pledge themselves to the principle of control of the police by County Councils. ["No."] I am not sure whether the test was not applied by electors who voted for Conservative members—["No."]—but I think upon County Councils Conservative members are in as decided a minority as they are in a majority in this House. But let that pass. If the ratepayers of London are really averse to the control of the police being placed in the hands of the County Council, as an hon. Gentleman opposite says they are, how does it come about that in so many instances elections were determined upon this question? Surely, it will not be urged for a moment by any hon. Member that the electors and ratepayers of London are so foolish, so blind to their own interest, that they would absolutely vote for power being placed in the hands of a body they look on with feelings of distrust? It is because they see these strained relations, the existence of which the Home Secretary cannot deny, between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, that the vast majority of London ratepayers are so set upon having the control of the Police Force, which costs £1,700,000 annually. A word upon what has been said as to the altered relations between police and people in London. I know that to the great majority of Members

    1571
    of this House it is not of very much importance whether the Police Force arrogates to itself more power or remains in the position it has hitherto occupied. Most of us, fortunately—I am myself an exception—do not habitually come into collision with the police. I do not mean to say I do so habitually—but most of us do not often come into contact with the police, their functions, so far as we are concerned, being limited to opening cab doors and attentions of that kind. But with the vast bulk of the poorer population of London the case is different. Police supervision and police interference can make their lives intolerable to them. I appeal to any hon. Member who has knowledge of the labouring classes in London whether there is not grievous complaint of the interference in the daily life of the poorer population which is gradually being arrogated to itself by the Police Force. For these reasons I view with exceeding regret the appointment of another military gentleman to the office. From a Constitutional point of view do sincerely regret the introduction of the military system into what has always been a civil force. I foresee that if military discipline and system is introduced into the Police Force, the scenes of riot and disorder, and the strained relations between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, which have existed for three or four years, will become intensified, and the time of Parliament, which should be devoted to subjects vastly more important, will be taken up more and more every Session with the discussion of questions which should be dealt with by the London County Council.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I shall not express any opinion as to the newly-appointed Chief Commissioner, as I should prefer first to see how he fills the office. And, with regard to the issue raised between the Home Secretary and Mr. Monro, as I have only read the letter of Mr. Monro and heard the speech of the Home Secretary, I feel I have not got sufficient data on which to pronounce an absolute opinion, but, with such data as I have, I am inclined to believe that the Home Secretary is right in regard to the matter of the resignation of Mr. Monro. A question seems to have arisen with re-
    1572
    gard to police superannuation. But the Home Secretary is the Representative of Parliamentary control with reference to the police, and I hold that it is most essential that the Home Secretary should have this control so long as the police depend upon Parliament, and not upon the County Council. The question which arose was as to the amount to be granted to the police. I never yet heard of value attaching to the opinion of those who are to receive pensions. Of course, the Commissioner and the police, being themselves interested in the question of superannuation, would naturally take a very favourable view of the matter in discussing it; but what happened? The Home Secretary prepared a Bill and showed it to Mr. Monro, who objected to it, and said that if the Bill was not altered he should resign, and because the right hon. Gentleman did not make the alterations which were demanded Mr. Monro did resign. Now, I do not recognise that sort of thing as the duty or the right of the Chief Superintendent or Commissioner. If the Bill is a bad Bill, it is for this House to criticise and discuss it, when the Bill is brought in. The Home Secretary in the discussion would have stated whether the police approved of the Bill or not, but for the Commissioner to menace, I may say, the Home Secretary with his resignation is contrary entirely to my idea of the subordination that the Commissioner ought to observe to the Representative of Parliamentary control. This Police Force is a positive army. What, I should like to know, would be the state of things in the Army itself were the House to set up the Commander-in-Chief against the Secretary of State for War? Of course, we should support the Secretary for War. I put aside politics altogether, and I say that so far as I know the details of the dispute, the Home Secretary is in the right, and his power should be upheld so long as Parliamentary control remains. Until the police are placed under the control of the County Council, I shall always act upon that principle. I think that Chief Commissioners are very much inclined to take too much upon themselves. Were they in the House it would be different, but now, in police matters, the House has to complain not to the Chief Commissioner, but to the

    1573
    Home Secretary, who has to bring in Bills affecting the police. Unless we act on tin's principle there will be an end to all Parliamentary control, and we shall have the police becoming a sort of Praetorian Guard, and the Commisioner a sort of Praetorian Prefect, completely dominating this House and the whole Legislature. I think it the duty of all who share these opinions to back up the Home Secretary in his action; otherwise there will be an end of all Parliamentary control. I now come to another point. I find that the Commissioner's salary is £1,500 a year, and I doubt whether it would not be wise, seeing the position that official holds, the duties he has to discharge, and the large force of men he has to command, to grant a larger salary. But I have heard that Mr. Monro received £1,000 a year from the Secret Service Fund. Does the right hon. Gentleman who shakes his head positively say that Mr. Monro received no money from that fund? As I understand, Mr. Anderson did receive a considerable sum from that source for looking after detective business in America in regard to Irishmen, but this has been discontinued since he became Assistant Commissioner, and the duties have since been undertaken and the money received by Mr. Monro. This is most objectionable, if correct, and we ought to know exactly what the salary of the Commissioner is.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner receives nothing but what appears on the Estimates. He has an Indian pension.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will go a step further, and inform us who is now at the head of this detective business in America?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That hardly arises on the Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: There are Assistant Commissioners. I want to know whether any of the Assistant Commissioners receive anything from the Secret Service money?
    MR. MATTHEWS: No person down on the Estimates for a salary receives anything in addition to that salary.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: That is an answer; but I should like to know the relations of the police of Scotland Yard with the police and others in America.
    1574
    There was a discussion in this House some time ago about the position of Mr. Hoare, our Consul in New York. It was shown that Mr. Hoare had had communications from England in regard to police matters, and that he took up a position as a sort of head of the Detective Department in the United States. I believe I am right in saying that that business has been handed over to Mr. Eraser, Vice Consul, and I think we ought to be informed—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not see how that is relevant to this Vote. It might be raised on the Vote for the Home Secretary's salary.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I will drop that point; but there is another in which I confess I am myself a little interested. There is a policeman of the name of Jarvis, who has brought an action against me for saying he was at a certain place at a certain time in America. Now, I want to know from the Home Secretary whether Jarvis is to pay for this or the police? I do not object to the police paying; but if I win my case, and Jarvis cannot pay, I want to know whether the Home Secretary, or someone in his Department, will pay the expenses? I do not know whether or not Jarvis has been put forward without any money against me; but I know that the action may cost me £1,000 or £2,000, and I want to know, if I win my case, to whom I am to look for my expenses. If Jarvis is being supplied with funds by the police I think the Home Secretary will admit that if I win I ought to have my expenses from those who are supplying-him. As Jarvis's salary is included in this Estimate, this is the time to raise the question.
    MR. MATTHEWS: No; it is not included.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think it is included in this Estimate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. LABOUCHERE: As I have exhausted my criticisms, I may as well sit down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. There is no salary in the Vote beyond that of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners.
    MR. CAUSTON: I am sure all hon. Members will agree with me that these frequent acri-

    1575
    monious discussions with regard to the London Police are not only most distasteful to those who take part in them but most injurious to the well-being of the police and of the people of London. It is not that the people and the police cannot get on well together, but it is the abominable system which exists that causes the trouble. Now that we have a London County Council, we say that the police should be placed under its control, in the same way as the Municipal Bodies in other cities and towns have control over their police. The people of London have made up their minds that they will no longer allow their police to be controlled by the Home Secretary, be he Liberal or be he Conservative. With regard to Mr. Monro's resignation, the hon. Member for Northampton seems to be in possession of more information than we have got. We have only the statement of the Home Secretary.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I specifically said I knew nothing beyond the letter of Mr. Monro, and the statement of the Home Secretary.
    MR. CAUSTON: Then we are all in the same position. Whether the Home Secretary be right or wrong, I desire to say that the present system is bad, and we want to see it altered. That system brings hard and distasteful work to the police; it brings the Home Secretary into disrepute; and there is no doubt that the ill-feeling between the police and the people will also bring about what we think is an unnecessary demand for an increase of the London Police Force. The only remedy is to place the police under the control of the London County Council. I quite admit there may be a necessity for a Government Imperial police. If the Government want a force for the protection of the Public Offices by all means have one, but do not let us have a police dictatorship in London. Place the London police under the control of the London County Council, and you will establish good-will between the police and the people, and ease the labours of the Home Secretary. Of course, we cannot now discuss the details of the Superannuation Bill. The police render special services, and should be specially treated; they look after our property and our
    1576
    lives; they give themselves up to their work almost in the same way that the clergy devote themselves to looking after our souls. Superannuation, no doubt, attracts respectable men to the Force; but if in the Bill you are going to take away with one hand what you give with the other, you will do no good. What you want is a contented police, and if you have that you have a trustworthy and reliable force. I cannot understand why the Metropolitan Police should not be as well paid as the City Police. It is absurd to say that the Metropolitan Police could not be controlled by the London County Council, for the City Corporation manages its own force. In the City you have most valuable property requiring protection, and you never hear of the City Police being inefficient or discontented. I do hope that in the interests of the Home Office, for the sake of the peace of mind of the Home Secretary, in the interests of the welfare of the people of London as well as of the police generally, this short-sighted policy in regard to the management of the police will be abandoned.
    MR. PICTON: I should be glad to have an explanation of the item of £650 for the travelling expenses of Inspectors.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to ask an explanation of the item of £48,000 for clothing and other expenses of constables employed in the protection of public buildings and on other special duties. I have reason to believe that the special duty of some of these gentlemen was to go to Colorado in the interests of the Times before the Special Commission, and while pretending to be on holiday engage themselves in finding out a large number of mares' nests. We know it has been denied, but we know also that the denials were false, for we had men there as well as Her Majesty's Government. Differing from some of my hon. Friends, I was delighted when I heard of Mr. Monro's resignation. The more these permanent officials are put down the better. Mr. Monro made himself specially offensive to Irish Members. His conduct in connection with the Select Committee in regard to the hon. Member for North Louth was abominable. Therefore, the moment I

    1577
    heard that Mr. Monro had resigned I was greatly delighted. It is always a good thing to get rid of the last man. As to the alleged payment of secret service money to the Chief Commissioner, I think we ought to know more on this matter. We know how it once transpired—although it had been denied—that a sum of £10,000 had been used in securing Parliamentary candidates. We are also aware that when there is a change of Government these things are sure to leak out, and we should like to know where it is the Chief Commissioner gets his perquisites from, if not from the Secret Service Fund. If he receives anything in addition to his salary it should appear on the Estimates. I agree that the salary attached to the office ought to be raised. I heard with some surprise the statement the other night that the Force was to be increased by 1,000 men. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby increased the Force at the time of one of the explosions which occurred, I believe, on the day of the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, the right hon. Gentleman said that if the people of London wished the police to be specially engaged for their protection when they were out enjoying themselves they would have to pay for it, and it would be necessary to add to the Force. It was proposed to strengthen the Force on a former occasion, solely on account of the presence of dynamitards in the Metropolis. But the right hon. Gentleman is proposing an increase at a time when practically there is no crisis and no kind of disturbance. This second addition will make an increase of 2,000 since five or six years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was the Home Secretary. Of course, if the men are over-worked, and have been kept on duty too long hours, it is quite right that an increase should be made. Still, I think the Government make an increase in circumstances which require very much more explanation than is afforded by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. This advance in the number of the police is really effected in a backstairs sort of manner, so that the cost may not come on the Estimates. I do not know how these things are arranged in London, but I
    1578
    gather that there is no check whatever on the right hon. Gentleman, or on the number of men who are to compose the Force. I deprecate the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton with reference to setting up a Force in London, which is to be treated as a sort of Prætorian Guard. That expression was used by the Royal Irish Constabulary when they struck in 1882. Allow me to say that the two bodies are very different. The police of London, like the police of Dublin, are of a pacific temperament, and are not supplied with bayonets and rifles, and powder and ball. They live amongst a civil population, and do not segregate in barracks. They are not subject to that close military discipline which prevails in the Irish Constabulary, and I do not believe that there is the slightest desire on the part of the London police in any way to set themselves up as against the civil population. Having lived now for a long time in London, I may say that a more respectful body of men I do not believe ever had control of the streets of any Metropolis in the world. They are civil to a fault. It is not as if they knew you. Of course, coming about this House, one may expect extra attention. But wherever you go the police of the Metropolis are universally, extremely, and consistently polite and courteous in their duty. That shows the advantage of having a domestic Police Force, uncontrolled by stringent military discipline, which prevails in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if any excitement were allowed to grow up among the constabulary in London, or if they were induced to combine in a hostile sense against Her Majesty's Government, because if, instead of moderate agitation, they were to take hostile means for the redress of their grievances, I believe they would only set the general body of the population against them, and the general body of the population is now largely in sympathy with them, and most anxious for the redress of their grievances. I believe that if the Government can at all manage to see their way to meet the just and fair demands of the men, the people of London, and the Members of this House, so far as the Estimates can be laid before them, would be prepared

    1579
    to go a long way in soothing down and dissipating the grievances and irritation of these men. I deprecate the suggestion of any attempt whatever to set up a Praetorian Guard.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The hon. Member has asked a question with regard to an item of £625 which appears on these Estimates as travelling expenses of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. I can assure the hon. Member for Leicester that these expenses have nothing to do with journeys to America. They are the expenses of the officers whose duty it used to be, before the Local Government Act, to satisfy the Home Secretary of the efficiency, not of the Metropolitan Force, but of the provincial force, and whose duty it is since the Local Government Act, to afford information upon which can be given the certificate that is required before contributions can be made to the Local Police Authorities from the Imperial taxation, which has been transferred to local purposes. The performance of that duty involves journeys to every county and every police borough in England and Wales. The hon. Member for East Finsbury (Mr. Rowlands) inquired why the Report of the Department Committee upon superannuation had not been produced. I do not know whether he was in the House when the Home Secretary spoke. If he was he must have noticed that the Home Secretary distinctly said that the Departmental Committee separated without making any Report, on the ground that Mr. Monro, most unhappily for the interests of the police and their administration generally, thought it his duty to separate himself from the deliberations of that Committee. As regards the Annual Report, of the Chief Commissioner, which some hon. Members say ought to be issued at an earlier period of the year, in order that the House may have it in its hands when the Police Vote comes before it, I can assure him that I heartily sympathise with him in that desire. But the Commissioner of Police is most heavily burdened with the most anxious duties, and it is found in practice—I could quote precedents for many years back — that the Annual
    1580
    Report never can be brought out much before the month of August or September. It is true, I believe, that on one occasion it was got out, but the Police Vote was taken at a very late date. Since the disappearance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, the Debate has somewhat quitted the lines on which he sought to launch it. I had no doubt as to the result, and I felt sure that the very general concurrence which has been expressed in all parts of the House as to the conduct of my right, hon. Friend the Home Secretary with regard to the unhappy differences which have arisen, would be endorsed and approved by the great majority of this House. The Debate has since proceeded on the familiar lines of a discussion of the Utopian idea of municipal control of the Metropolitan Police. I have always noticed up to the present evening that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has been most careful to guard himself against anything like an approval of the municipal control of the London Police as against Imperial control. But on this occasion he has selected, if I may say so, the body of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a bridge whereby he may cross from one country to the other, deserting all the opinions gained in the hard experience of office, that he may travel in a more convenient and pleasant land, in which he can gain electoral support. For my part, I maintain that this House, 80 of whose Members are elected by constituencies in the Metropolitan Police area, while the other 590, by the very condition of their holding seats in this House, are residents in that area, is the most effective Watch Committee we could have, accustomed as it is to investigate questions of far larger importance and financial difficulty than are those connected with the Metropolitan Police Force. Not only that, but I maintain that there is quicker responsibility and sensitiveness to public opinion under the present conditions of control of the police than there would be were they controlled by the County Council, whose debates do not attract the attention nor involve the tremendous political consequences which attach to debates in this House on acts of the Executive. We have heard to-day of the discontent

    1581
    which is supposed to reign in the Metropolitan Police Force. I have watched the government of that Force for four years, and having had relations with the Superior Staff, which I should always have been glad to have, I am bound to say that I am very sceptical about the reports of general and widespread dissatisfaction in the London police. There is not the smallest doubt that there has been a great deal of cooked up appearance of it in the newspapers; the number of the meetings has been exaggerated, and I am not quite sure that there have not been reports of meetings which have never taken place. Sir, I think better of the Metropolitan police than to suppose they would engage in anything like the kind of agitation in combination with outsiders in which they have been represented in some prints as being engaged. I feel certain that, when reasonable discussion is allowed of their claim on the one hand, and of the efforts which are being made to satisfy them on the other, in the end we shall arrive at a just and satisfactory settlement of the claims of the police, with due regard to the interests of the ratepayers of London. I wish, Sir, that hon. Members had been inclined to let this subject alone. They come here; and with a light heart ask us to grant certain demands for additional pay and allowances for the police. I must say I feel inclined to ask them whether they have gone into the question at all of the additional burdens on the ratepayers? I believe were we to seriously entertain the demands of hon. Members the cost would involve a burden upon the ratepayers, much greater than the bulk of them are prepared to bear. I have said what I have with a full sense of the value of the services of the police. Let it not be supposed that we do not recognise the good temper with which the police discharge their duties in all sorts of difficult circumstances in all hours, and in circumstances of hardship and exposure. At the same time, Sir, every proposal of this kind must be examined not under the circumstances of political and electioneering pressure, but in the cool atmosphere of a strict examination of the financial consequences of the proposals that may be made. I hope, Sir, after this discussion
    1582
    the Committee may possibly be disposed to allow us to take this Vote, which, I can answer, will not be taken as giving the Government any encouragement or commission to deal otherwise than fairly with a Force which has immense claims upon the gratitude of the people, and as regards which I do not believe the statements that are made by certain gentlemen who sit in certain quarters of this House and represent them as being out of harmony with the people amongst whom they live.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps I may, as a Metropolitan Member, be allowed to say a few words in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department. He says we have been engaged in a philosophical discussion, but whether that be so or not, one result of the Debate has been that it has brought the question of the control of the Metropolitan Police by the London County Council more than ever within the range of practical politics. One of the arguments by which the case brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has been met, is that the House has been engaged in considering' an ideal and Utopian system of a municipal control over the London Police. That I suppose-means that the municipal control of the police, which answers so well in the great provincial towns, is ideal; and, at any rate, if it be ideal there the idea is one which might well be extended to the Metropolis. We object to these local Metropolitan questions occupying the time and attention of the House to the exclusion of the great Imperial questions with which it has to deal. We do not believe they can be properly discussed and decided in this House, and we think that they ought to be handed over to the representatives of the ratepayers in the County Council by whom they will receive proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department has said that 80 Members of this House who represent Metropolitan constituencies are resident in the Metropolis, have so strong an interest in its affairs, and may be relied upon by the ratepayers for the efficiency with which they will guard the interests

    1583
    of the constituencies in this matter; but I would point out that by far the greater portion of the Metropolitan Members occupy seats on the other side of the House, and that with but one exception none of those 60 or 70 Conservative gentlemen have spoken on this question this evening, although it is one affecting the discipline and the whole position of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot blame hon. Members opposite for not having taken part in the Debate this evening as the time has only, with great difficulty, been wrested from other matters of importance, and no one desires that the discussion should be continued at any great length. Still it is unfortunate that we should be confined to one solitary evening in the entire Session for the discussion of the whole question of the Metropolitan police, and this fact is in itself proof sufficient that these questions do not receive that consideration from the representatives of the London constituencies which they ought to receive. These are matters which do not affect the House of Commons as much as they affect the ratepayers; and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is greatly hampered and controlled by Acts of Parliament in dealing with them. At the same time, the ratepayers, who have to pay by far the larger portion of the cost of the police, have no direct voice in the decision of these questions. I will not, at this hour, go into the general question. I will only say that I think the real gravamen of the charge we make against the Home Secretary is not so much that he exercised the final control—for we are all agreed that he ought to exercise full control over the Chief Commissioner so long as ho is responsible for the Metropolitan Police in this House—as that these difficulties which have arisen ought never to have been allowed to get to such a head. We say that the right hon. Gentleman has shown now, as in former times, when we have had to discuss questions connected with his office in this House, that he is out of touch with the police and those having authority in that Force; and that he is unable sufficiently to control it, as is proved by the discontent which prevails among the men. The Under Secretary
    1584
    for the Home Department denies that there is discontent in the force. Nobody believes or wishes that that discontent should come to a serious crisis; but that there is a large amount of discontent I think few in this House will deny. That discontent has, we say, arisen from the strained relations between the Home Office and the Police; and we cannot but attribute the fact to the action of the Home Secretary himself. We, en this side, are all agreed that the right hon. Gentleman might have handled the force with greater discretion and ability, and our experience of the way in which these questions have been handled in the past has shown us that he is altogether out of touch with the Force generally. This has brought us more and more to the belief that the only way in which the most important and vital questions relating to the Metropolitan Police can be properly discussed and decided is by placing that Force under the control of the Representative Council for London.
    MR. PICTON: The Committee was strongly disposed to pass this vote at once when the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department rose to make his speech; but the hon. Gentleman has contrived to say several things which necessitate an answer, and so, therefore, to some extent, has prolonged this Debate. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was justified in the attack he made upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, in his absence, and I must object to the sneering remark that since the right hon. Gentleman had left the House the discussion had taken a more proper and natural tone. The right hon. Gentleman was only doing his duty in bringing forward his case against the action of the Home Department. From his experience of the Department, and the high position he holds on the Front Opposition Bench, he was bound to bring before the Committee the profound uneasiness which exists in the public mind, and which has been occasioned by the friction which has subsisted between the Home Office and Scotland Yard, and, in fact, between the Home Office and the Police Force generally. I am, however, bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made a very able and temperate and also a very

    1585
    successful defence; but this does not, in the least degree, condemn the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby for having brought forward the case lie has advanced. If we have a case to bring forward but are never to raise it in this House unless we are infallibly certain that there is nothing to be said on the other side, there will practically be an end to all Debate. It is for us testate our case and hear what the other side has to say. If what is said on the other side is sound and satisfactory, we acknowledge it, but we are not to be blamed for stating our case as we receive it from the regular sources of information. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary wont, I think, a little out of his way in casting scorn upon the idea of our committing the Metropolitan Police to the care of the County Council. He made use of this singular observation—that this House is the best "Watch Committee." What does he mean by calling this House a Watch Committee? I suppose he knows what is usually meant by the Watch Committee of a Town Council? The Watch Committee is not the whole Council. It is a small body selected from among the members of the Council because of their special knowledge of the duties of the Municipal Police. They are personally acquainted with the Force and they know the needs of the different districts in their towns and boroughs, and generally are well qualified to carry out the functions devolving upon them. The idea of comparing this House, composed of Representatives of constituencies from John o'Groats to Land's End, as well as from across the Irish Sea, with an ordinary Watch Committee of a Town Council is the very height of absurdity. Beyond this, the right hon. Gentleman passed a slight upon what he termed "the small political consequence of the London County Coucil." What we say is, that it is precisely because of its non-political character that the London County Council is the body best fitted for the duty of undertaking the control and management of the Metropolitan Police. But then the right hon. Gentleman said this House was more sensitive to public opinion. I suppose he was thinking of the vote of last night. The London County Council is in direct
    1586
    and intimate touch with all parts of the Metropolis. Remarks have been made about the kindness and attention of the police, but there is something to be said on the other side. The men are good, but the system is thoroughly bad. In a force of 15,000 men, all cannot be perfect, and the system is likely at times to bring out the worst side of the character of the most arbitrary and passionate among them. The system leads them to believe that they are in many respects antagonistic to the democratic movements of the time. They are taught it is their business, as far as possible, to put down all open-air meetings. They think they are the opponents of extreme Radical opinions or Socialism, as the case may be, and their action at times, when there are great assemblies of the people, is likely to irritate rather than conciliate. The recent meeting in Hyde Park affords one illustration out of many of the irritating manner in which the police are often made to act. I say "made to act," because I am quite sure that, under an ordinary Municipal Government, their own nature would lead them to do nothing of the kind. Those who attended the Hyde Park meeting could see that the police were made to interrupt it and to minimise the public demonstration of opinion as far as possible. It is continually my misfortune to have to walk home through the streets very late at night, and I cannot help noticing the action of the police. I have repeatedly seen police constables needlessly interfere with the harmless jollity of people who, perhaps, had had a little too much to drink, but who were good humoured enough if they were only let alone. I remember two police constables at the corner of Tottenham Court Road, seeing three young men coming along Oxford Street singing, and seizing them by the shoulders, and pushing them across the street until they nearly fell on their faces. Cases are continually reported in the newspapers of men being run in at police stations without any special reason whatever. Several cases have occurred in which Police Magistrates have said they could not decide on which side the blame lay, but they strongly suspected the action of the police. I do not say that these cases cast doubt on the general character of the police, but

    1587
    they illustrate my contention that the tendency of the system is rather to aggravate the worst features of the worst disposed men among them. The police ought to be a terror to evildoers, but not to ordinary citizens in the exercise of their ordinary rights. The police ought to be recognised everywhere as the friends of the people in all their legitimate enterprises. The present state of things has given rise to considerable friction and irritation between the police and the people of London, and I do not believe this will ever be cured until the police are put under the management of the London County Council.
    MR. GAINSEORD BRUCE: I should not have risen to address the House but for the challenge of the hon. Member opposite. We are told that we have not attempted to answer the case that has been made against the Government. We on this side of the House are not in the habit of making unnecessary speeches, and we thought it was useless to answer remarks which, so far as they required an answer, have already been answered by some of the hon. Members sitting opposite. I agree with what has been already said, that the frequent and acrimonious discussion of matters of this kind does not tend to the public advantage, and it seems to me that no facts have been brought forward to justify the charges which have been made.
    MR. C. GRAHAM: Does the hon. and learned Member deny that there is dissatisfaction existing among the police?
    MR. G. BRUCE: Yes, I do deny it. I venture to think I know as much about the police than Gentlemen opposite. I have been in constant communication with them of late, and I deny absolutely that there is any dissatisfaction amounting to disloyalty among them. It is true that attempts have been made to stir up dissatisfaction among the police, but those attempts have failed. It is said on the other side of the House that the people of London want the control of the police made over to the London County Council. The people of London want nothing of the kind. The people of London think the London County
    1588
    Council, as at present constituted, a most extravagant and inefficient body, utterly unable to confine its attention to its own business, and vainly meddling with the business of everybody else.
    MR. NORRIS: I came to the House prepared to blame the Home Secretary, but, after listening to the Debate, I think my right hon. Friend deserves to be praised and supported. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient discipline among the higher ranks at Scotland Yard. In these matters there can be no such thing as dual control; and if there has been any want of discipline, from Mr. Monro downwards, it is right that the Home Secretary should have put down his foot firmly. We are anxious that the superannuation allowances of the police should be ample, and even generous; but I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the first to complain of the Home Secretary if he had attempted to induce the House to accede to the suggestions of Mr. Monro. This is an occasion when, with every sympathy for the police, we must put confidence in the Home Secretary, and that confidence I hope hon. Members will show by their votes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think I am entitled to an answer to the two or three words I used earlier in the Debate.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. and learned Member wished to know whether Jarvis was paid out of the sum allotted for special duties. He has not been paid one penny out of that fund, nor has the sum of £1,000, or any sum whatever, been paid to Mr. Monro.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has answered me in one way and not in another. I asked how it was that this man Jarvis was enabled to pay this visit to Colorado, and how it was that a certain journal in this country had a man placed at its disposition, when it was pretended that he was on his holiday. When this man got to New York he was detached from that place by the Consul there and sent to Colorado. It is all very well to say that this man gets nothing under this Vote, but we are entitled to complain of the system whereby officers can be em-

    1589
    ployed in this manner. What was the man doing in America I Can it be pretended that an ordinary policeman could take a holiday in New York—a man who has only a salary of some 25s. a week? If this Vote is the only Vote in the Estimates for this purpose, it is singular that the expenses of police officers in occult and extraordinary duties can be screened and that the House can have no check upon them. It is an undoubted fact that this man went to America in the service of the Times, and yet it seems there is no means of checking the amount of money paid. If it was necessary to send this man away would his expenses be paid out of the Secret Service Fund and not out of this Vote? This is an attempt to blind Parliament. We have two grounds of complaint in the fact that Jarvis was detached in the service of the Times, and that Mr. Monro compelled this unfortunate man by a threat of dismissal to bring the libel action against the hon. Member for Northampton. Now that Mr. Monro has gone, I suppose that Jarvis will drop this action, because I do not imagine that this gentleman from the Crimea will be very much interested in the dignity of Mr. Monro, or in the maintenance of the truth of his letter to the Times. Jarvis will now have some peace. Hitherto his life has been made miserable. He had to back up Mr. Monro and the Home Secretary, and was compelled to make a, statement to the effect that he was never in America at all, or at all events, only in New York for a short time—these words having been put into the mouth of the Home Secretary by Mr. Monro. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has the same idea of the truth of Mr. Monro that he had, or whether he will receive that statement with some discount now that Mr. Monro has been compelled to resign. The Home Secretary made his statement to the House, I presume, on the authority of Mr. Monro; but did he attempt to probe the statement to the bottom? I would suggest that he should get this new General whom he is placing in charge of the Police Force to ask this question of Jarvis whether, as a matter of fact, he did make this journey to Del Norte? Mr. Monro now is in rather
    1590
    low water, but he has a following amongst a certain section of the police and the public, and I would point out to the Home Secretary that it would further discredit him to get his successor in office to question Jarvis and find out whether, as a matter of fact, he; went further West than Mr. Monro informed the Home Secretary. In this way the right hon. Gentleman can go a long way in the direction of discrediting the general way in which Mr. Monro discharged his ordinary duties. Will the Home Secretary say distinctly whether Jarvis went to America on Scotland Yard business or for a holiday?
    THE CHAIRMANrose to put the question.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If I receive no reply to my question, I shall move, Sir, that you report Progress.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have over and over again stated to the House that Jarvis did not go to Del Norte, Colorado. What is the use of asking me what fund he was paid from?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did he go to New York?
    MR. MATTHEWS: He was not paid out of this fund, and he did not go to Colorado. I have given the hon. Member the best information I can. I do not know why Jarvis went to Now York. I should think he went on public business. The suggestion that he went on his holidays is a pure joke. It is as incorrect a statement as the rest of his version of this affair.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has affected a very fine anger, but I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, I am completely indifferent to it. This is a matter which has been raised several times before the House by, the hon. Member for Northampton and the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I was joking when I asked if Jarvis had gone to New York on a holiday. I was doing nothing of the kind. The statement was put forward either by Jarvis or his official superiors. The right hon. Gentleman gets up to reply to me in a splendid frenzy; but let me tell him that if he wants to gets his Vote it is not by frenzy that he will get it. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know what Jarvis went to New York for; but

    1591
    the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. He was three times questioned about it by Metropolitan and other Members, and ha ought to have taken the trouble to inform himself. He knew the Police Vote was coming on, and ought to have known that this question would arise. It will be raised again and again until the right hon. Gentleman finds out where Jarvis went to. The matter in relation to Jarvis's visit to Colorado was not made clear until after the Debate upon the Special Commission Report. The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that the matter is going to be hushed up. If we cannot raise it on this Vote, we shall raise it on other Votes. There is one great distinguishing feature which we possess, and that is that when we start a question we thrash it out. I ask a specific question. Will the right hon. Gentleman put to Mr. Monro's successor the question addressed to himself as to the visit of Jarvis to Colorado?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I really think I must deprecate this discussion. Jarvis has brought an action, and the matter is before a Court of Law. Of course, I cannot express an opinion on the subject; but I believe I am in no way compromising Jarvis when I say I understand that, as a matter of fact, Jarvis was at the time in question on leave in America. At any rate, if a man brings an action he should have an opportunity of thrashing the question out in Court; it is hardly fair to Jarvis to prejudice the case by discussing it here. But there is a little matter of a personal nature in regard to which, perhaps, the Home Secretary will give me some information. It is, whether Jarvis is bringing this action with his own money, or using the public's money—my money as a taxpayer? I do not want to press hardly on this man. I dare say he is not well off, and I have not the slightest objection to the Government giving him money. But I protest against Jarvis being put forward in this case. I assume that I shall get a verdict, and that that verdict will carry costs. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; it is an action for libel, and a verdict would carry costs. Well, I do not want the Government to give Jarvis money with which to bring an action against me, and then when I get my costs to
    1592
    be told that Jarvis has no money. It is only fair that if the Government provide Jarvis with money to bring the action, they should pay me my costs.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The answer I gave to a question on this subject before was that Jarvis would bring the action at his own risk and cost. Perhaps the hon. Member for Long ford will accept the reason given by the hon. Member for Northampton why I should not subject Jarvis to cross-examination. I have given the hon. Member all the information I can.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The fact that an action has been brought against the hon. Member for Northampton is no reason why information should be withheld from us. The Irish Members are entitled to have the information I ask for, irrespective of any action against a newspaper proprietor. In my opinion, this man was sent to America to do the Times' business; and in order to mark my sense of the manner in which the man was sent out I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question, 'That a sum, not exceeding £37,586, be granted for the said Service,"—)Mr. T. M. Healy,) —put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    EDUCATION CODE (1890) [GRANT].
    Resolution [June 13th] reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise an additional Special Grant, out of monies to be provided by Parliament, to certain Elementary Schools, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for making operative certain Articles of the Education Code, 1890."
    MR. PICTON: I do not see the Vice President of the Committee of the Council in his place, but I wish to urge upon the Government the point I raised in Committee, namely, the permanent stigma that is being cast on teachers who have not passed through a training college. These teachers only count for 50 scholars, while those who have passed through a training college count for 60 scholars. I have shown how very strong

    1593
    is the feeling amongst teachers of this class. I have shown the unreasonable ness of setting up an arbitrary test of this kind in place of a practical test, and I think the point might be further considered. The only answer made by hon. Members opposite has been that if there is a deficiency of training college accommodation for Nonconformists, it is only for Nonconformists to put their hands in their pockets and build additional training colleges. That sounds very plausible; but hon. Members forget that Nonconformists have to put their hands in their pockets for a vast variety of objects which are already provided for members of the Established Church without any cost to themselves. Nonconformists have to build all their own places of worship and keep them up without any endowment provided for them by the State; and besides, the training colleges under the Church of England receive—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Code. This is only a formal Resolution. The Education Code is down on the Paper later.
    MR. PICTON: I understand this is a Resolution to make special provision for items of the Code. I shall object to this Report being received by the House, unless I have some assurance that this matter will be further considered. I do not ask for a promise that I shall get all I require; but I do want a promise that the matter will be re-considered. The teachers feel themselves aggrieved by this odious distinction.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order. He will be able to discuss this question when the Code Bill is before the House. This is purely a financial matter.
    MR. PICTON: Then my only resource is to move the adjournment of the Debate. In the hope that I may get some explanation or assurance as to the application of this money, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is unreasonable to move the adjournment of the Debate for the purpose of discussing a point that can only be discussed on the Code Bill, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persevere with his Motion.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think we are entitled to know from the
    1594
    Vice President of the Committee of the Council what are the particular items for which this grant is asked.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DIKE,): This is purely formal. It is really to enable the House, later on in Committee, to provide the means for proposals in the Code Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I submit a question of order to you, Mr. Speaker? Let us take the case of the Budget Bill. That Bill goes through several stages. On the Budget Bill the different arrangements are discussed, with Mr. Courtney in the Chair. I presume this Resolution provides the ways and means by which the Bill can be worked. That being so, I would respectfully submit that on this Resolution it is in order to discuss the Code itself.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: The necessity for the Resolution arises in this way. There is a proposal in the Code that certain grants shall be given for poor schools in rural districts, and this is the money clause.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) is labouring under a misapprehension. This does not touch the training colleges at all.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: For the sake of safeguarding the rights of Members, I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be in order to discuss the clause of the Bill to which this Resolution relates?
    MR. SPEAKER: No doubt it would be; but my observation was that this is not the Resolution on which the whole Bill is founded, but only a Resolution with regard to this particular clause.
    Resolution agreed to.

    BARRACKS (CONSOLIDATED) FUND.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the charge on, and issue out of, the Consolidated Fund of any deficiency which there may be in the moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of the principal and interest of any sums borrowed by the Treasury, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for building and enlarging barracks and camp" in the United Kingdom and in certain colonies.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    INLAND REVENUE REGULATION (RECOMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 211.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
      Clause 11.
      MR. PICKERSGILL: I have to move an Amendment on this clause. The 1st sub-section imposes a penalty on anyone who obstructs a Revenue Officer in the execution of his duty. To that I have no objection. The 2nd sub-section, however, provides that if on the hearing it is proved that a defendant has unlawfully committed an assault, he may be convicted of the assault, though the charge contained in the information may have broken down. I object very strongly to that provision, because it appears to me to violate an elementary principle of justice, inasmuch as it enacts that a man who is charged with one offence may be found guilty of another. I object mainly in the interest of poor men who may happen to be defendants. The case of the rich man, who comes into Court attended and protected by a cloud of counsel, is different. It appears to me that under this section a poor man, knowing, of course, nothing of the law, might be convicted of an offence to which his attention had never been called during the hearing, and which he might have means of disproving. In justice to the Government I ought, perhaps, to say that the Bill was submitted to a Committee, on which there were three very eminent lawyers from this side of the House. They apparently have allowed this curious innovation upon criminal practice to pass unchallenged. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is one of those to whom I allude, and I am rather surprised that he allowed it to pass without challenge. It appears to me it is still more likely to produce injustice in Ireland than in England. Now, in the first place, I do not see why in a matter of criminal procedure an officer of a Government Department should be treated with special indulgence
      1596
      as compared with a private person, who, failing to secure one remedy, has to commence proceedings de novo. I do not see why there should be an exception for an official who has at command a lavish supply of the best professional advice. If an assault is committed, a conviction can be obtained under the 1st section of the clause, for it would by its nature be an obstruction if the officer was in execution of his duty. But if the officer was not in the execution of his duty, why should he be specially protected? I think it may lead to insolence and Jack-in-officeism not to be encouraged. There are precedents, it is said; and I admit that there may be in regard to indictable offences. For instance, ill the case of a man indicted for embezzlement, if it turn out that the act does not in law amount to embezzlement but is really larceny, then the defendant can be convicted of larceny. But I want to point out this, that, in the case of an indictable offence, it is some act in connection with and part Of the offence in its legal aspect; but under this section it may apply to some different act altogether which might be brought against the defendant, and he might be convicted of it. The words of the section run—
      "If upon the hearing of the information it is proved that such person unlawfully committed an assault."
      Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the words are very loose and slovenly. When? Upon whom? Under what circumstances? In what relation to the offence originally charged? Really, under these words, it appears to me, the defendant might be convicted if he committed an assault upon his wife long before. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, and I put an extreme case, but only to show how loose and slovenly is the language of the section. So far as words go, it would appear that if it could be shown a man had committed an assault long before then, under the words of the section, he might be convicted of that assault. Then the reds a difficulty to which I invite the attention of the Solicitor General. Summary jurisdiction in respect to common assault depends

      1597
      on the complaint made by, or on behalf, of the person aggrieved, and dismissal or conviction is a bar to all other proceedings for a similar cause. Now, I want to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will a conviction for a common assault under this section be a similar bar, or will it not? Whichever answer the lion, and learned Gentleman gives will, I think, be unsatisfactory. It is a logical dilemma. If the Solicitor General replies "yes," then the person aggrieved is deprived of the option secured to him by the general law of a criminal or civil remedy: if "no," then the defendant is liable to be twice prosecuted for the same cause, contrary to the protection extended to persons under the general law, in cases of common assault. This is a fair illustration of the inconvenience of these casual incursions upon well-established principles of criminal justice. I understand that, before the Committee, it was urged that this subsection should be introduced in the interest of the defendant himself, and that is a plausible argument I desire for a moment to deal with. It was said acquittal does not absolutely discharge the defendant; he may still be proceeded against for assault, and that, under the present law, he is put to the inconvenience of having to appear and bring up his witnesses on a subsequent day. Well, let us see whether that argument advanced in the supposed interest of the defendant will hold water. I venture to think it will not, and for this reason: At the close of the hearing on the charge of obstruction, defendant is there in Court, and he can be charged instanter with the commission of assault; and if he does not object, the Court then and there can proceed to hear and determine. That, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not dispute, is Common Law. No doubt there are conditions under which the defendant might object, but ex hypothesi the defendant will be anxious to have the case settled then and there. I am rather jealous of these innovations. I think there is a tendency at the present day in the direction of laxity in legal procedure, a reaction, no doubt, against the pedantic formalism of other days; but I think a little too much laxity has shown a tendency to invade our Department of Criminal Law, and
      1598
      against the danger of this I make my protest. I have had some conversation with the Solicitor General on this subject, and he, in the most courteous manner, promised to explain his own view, and has even gone so far as to say that, if I am not satisfied with his explanation, he will be prepared not to press this alteration in our Criminal Law.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, to leave out all the words from the word "hearing" to the word "accordingly" inclusive in line 20.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): It is of so much importance that this most useful Bill, which has been so carefully considered, should be allowed promptly to pass into law, that I did say, and I am quite prepared to stand by it, that if the hon. Member feels it necessary to make a resolute opposition to this clause, I would rather yield on the point than lose the opportunity of passing the Bill. I said I hoped, and I still have that hope, to be able to satisfy the hon. Member that the alteration is a useful one, and in the interest of those persons whom the hon. Member has taken under his protection—that is to say, persons charged with offences of this kind who, for the most part, are poor persons. Such persons could now be charged with the offence of molesting, obstructing, or hindering an officer in the execution of his duty; and if it turned out that the officer was not strictly in the execution of his duty at the time, and that it really was a common assault, the Magistrate would be obliged to dismiss the charge originally brought, and then a new summons would be taken out and the defendant would get no costs. The defendant would have to answer that summons, the same facts would be repeated in evidence, and he could be convicted on the second summons. The only effect of this clause is, that if the facts proved before the Magistrate show that a common assault was committed, but not upon a man in the execution of

      1599
      his duty, the matter could be dealt with at once on the facts, and without the necessity of a second summons and a second hearing, but the result would be the same as if there had been both. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it might be on different facts, but that cannot be. If the hon. Member will look at the words of the section he will find that if on the hearing of the complaint against any person it is proved such person knowingly committed an assault, he is not entitled to be, and will not be, acquitted by reason of the failure to prove the offence in the first instance. The clause indicates that the Magistrate must take into consideration the facts given in evidence on the first information, and he is limited to this consideration. It is said that punishment may be inflicted for assault upon some one else, but if the hon. Member will examine the words, he will see that is not possible. It is a charge of obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty, but if it be proved that the officer was not in the execution of his duty, then the defendant may not be wholly acquitted for his action, but is liable to be convicted for common assault. The alteration is a reasonable and practical one, and I do not believe it can injure anybody. I think it will be an advantage so to amend the law, but, as I said before so I say now, if the hon. Member desires to press the matter, I think the remainder of the Bill is of so much importance that, rather than imperil its passage, I will yield the point and allow the Amendment to be carried.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to abandon the words, I need not take up time with argument in support of the Amendment. ["Agreed."] Do I understand the subsection will be abandoned?
      SIR E. CLARKEsignified assent.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: The Solicitor General takes a very moderate attitude. Although I was a Member of the Committee which passed the Bill, and recognise that it is extremely desirous that the officers of the Department should be armed with strong powers in the execution of their duty in
      1600
      the prevention of smuggling, I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to accept the Amendment. I do not want to press my views, but I do think there is a great hardship in the manner in which such strong powers are given the Authorities against the ordinary citizen, while if the latter brings an action against an official, the official is hedged about with extraordinary protection. Observe that in case of conviction of offence against the officer, the Magistrate has no option but to inflict a fine of £100, not a fine up to that sum, it must be £100. While this protection is given to the officer of the law, if an officer of the law knocks down anybody in precisely the same manner, look at the way in which the officer is protected. Under Clause 28 the complainant must bring an action within three months, and then he must give notice of action, which, of course, is a technical thing, and then on the offence contained in the notice the defendant may plead not guilty by Statute and may make tender of amends. Now, all subjects of Her Majesty should be equal, and no man should have privilege beyond that of an ordinary citizen if he knocks me down, and I submit these distinctions are not justifiable. According to the Common Law Procedure Act the plea of not guilty by Statute was abolished. It was revived by Judge's Rule in Ireland, but it is a monstrous thing, while an official is hedged about with so much protection, that an aggrieved person, in an unofficial position, should find so much difficulty in obtaining redress. In Committee it was regarded as a very strong measure indeed, but the Government in Committee were assisted by some very able gentlemen, who represented the views of the Department, and the Committee yielded; but I must say I think there is rather a tendency to overdepartmentalise under the influence of gentlemen suffering from what the Americans call "swelled head."
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 12 to 27 agreed to.
      Clause 28.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I venture to make an appeal to the Solicitor General whether, in these modern days, it is not desirable to drop out such a provision as this. The House and the Committee have shown themselves willing to arm the Executive Authority with ample powers for carrying out their important duties, and this is a most useful consolidating Bill; but I appeal to the Government that when on the one hand they make it impossible for the Magistrate to mitigate the penalty on the subject, the subject should not, on the other hand, be so tightly fettered in bringing an action. I look with suspicion on any attempt against the Common Law. No doubt, executive officers have had this protection for many years, but have they not had it long enough, and has not the time arrived when such protection is no longer necessary? It would be well, when the Department is getting such valuable concessions as this Bill affords, that the Department should show that they do not wish to insist that their officers should have any more protection than other persons can claim when acting with illegality. I will not make any Motion until I hear what the lion, and learned Gentleman may have to say, but I am sure if a spirit of concession is shown there will be no difficulty about the Bill passing.
      SIR E. CLARKE: I am sorry I cannot consent to the omission of the clause, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press that upon the Committee. He is aware this is a Consolidation Bill, collecting into one Bill provisions scattered over several Statutes in a manner that made the administration of the law somewhat cumbrous and difficult. The penalties and the provisions in the Bill do not involve any alteration in the law for the protection of officers in carrying out their duties. I hope the hon. Member will not press for the exclusion of the clause now. I cannot consent to that in this Consolidation Bill. If an amendment of the law should hereafter be thought desirable, the matter could be very readily dealt
      1602
      with. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to let the Bill go through now.
      COLONEL NOLAN: I am sorry I do not see my way to accept that suggestion. I suppose, as the Government is in possession of a large majority, we must bow to their decision; but we could amend the clause considerably if the Committee would give attention to it. In Sub-section A I will move the omission of the word "three," in order to insert "twelve." I am afraid not many Members opposite have the Bill in their hands. Subsection A declares that no action shall lie unless commenced within three months after the cause of action, and in addition to that there must be a month's notice of action, which, practically, reduces anyone who brings an action against an officer of the Inland Revenue to a period of two months. That is a very short time, and I think it would be only reasonable and judicious to extend the time to 12 months. The Solicitor General says we are only consolidating the law from several Acts on the Statute Book, but I remember when I was on the Committee which dealt with the Criminal Law we found in that Committee the usual difficulty that the Government have, in consolidation, always the temptation to improve the law at the same time, and all the Departments rush in and want the Act made more severe. It is rarely you find a Government with sufficient good sense to resolutely confine the Act to consolidation. If they would do that, and not attempt to improve the law, they might do much in eliminating Acts from the Statute Book and making the law more clear. But they try to improve upon the existing Acts and make the law more severe, and this Bill is an instance. This, I think, affords a fair opportunity to provide that the Inland Revenue should not have the special protection afforded by this limitation of time.
      Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 32, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "twelve."—(Colonel Nolan.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
      DR. KENNY: I beg to second this Amendment. It is obvious that a man may receive very serious injuries in a contest with an officer of the law, and may not for many months discover the extent of them. Yet, practically, the officer escapes liability if the action is not brought within three months. I think the Solicitor General might make some concession on this point, and take advantage of a Consolidation Bill to make an oppressive law less oppressive. As the Amendment is in that direction, I support it; and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he cannot accept 12 months, will agree to extend the time to six months.
      SIR E. CLARKE: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise that we are acting upon the suggestion he himself made, and in a Consolidation Bill wish to consolidate and not alter the law. This clause is not an alteration of the law, it is a repetition of what is on the Statute Book. It is extremely important that in respect to actions brought in respect to alleged assaults there should be a proper limit, and I hope in a simple Consolidation Bill the hon. Member will allow the clause to remain as it stands.
      It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 241.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): I wish to explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork has withdrawn his objection to this Bill on the understanding that the hon. Member for North Longford will move his Amendment on the Report stage.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course, it is understood that the Member for South Belfast will facilitate us as regards the Report stage.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Certainly.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    DR. TANNER: I hope it is perfectly understood that the hon. Member for South Belfast will give every possible facility to enable the Medical Profession in Ireland so to deal with this Bill as to pass it in the form in which it will meet their necessities.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I have great pleasure in giving that pledge.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But if this Bill passes through Committee without amendment will there be an opportunity of amending it on Report?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no Amendment there will be no Report.
    Clause agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 22 be omitted."
    Agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

    DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES BILL.— (No. 125.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

    LAND REGISTRY.
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return showing the nature of the fees amounting to £3,828, received by the Land Registry Office in the year ending on the 31st day of March last, and distinguishing the amount received in respect of the registration of titles."—(Mr, Jackson.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 240.]
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.