§ Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)This appears to be a Bill which takes an amount of money not exceeding £1,200, and hands it over to the police. Now the police has a very large subsidy from the Imperial funds, and also a large payment out of the local funds, and we have always protested against these special claims on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. This Bill introduces a new charge of £1,200, which we shall certainly object to.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, BlackpoolIt is true that the language of the Bill is very wide, but the object of the Bill is to do away with the mischievous system of bounties which now exists, and to substitute a payment out of the Vote. It does not in any way create a new charge, but merely gets rid of the mischievous system of allowances.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)We object to this Bill because we think that London is rich enough and big enough to manage her own police, and she ought to be made to pay for her police, as any of the provincial towns and boroughs. The police ought to be handed over to the County Council, who ought also to have the management of the magistrates, and that she ought to bear the extra burden.
§ * SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYThere is no extra burden arising under this Bill.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)It is a matter for regret that the Home Secretary did not tell us what the allowances were. I sincerely trust that on the next occasion he will give this information, so as to show the necessity for this Bill.