latter year simply because the accounts of 1887 and 1888 are not accessible to me while writing this.

This shows an increase of cost of less than 8 per cent. The increase of population, exclusive of the metropolitan police district, in the same period was about 11 per cent. On Lady Day 1877 the rateable value of the whole country for poor-law purposes was £127,948,000, and on Lady Day 1885 it was £147,350,000. The rateable value of the metropolitan police district at these dates was respectively £24,417,000 and £31,899,000, and we may, therefore, at any rate, for purposes of comparison, without much error, take the valuation for police purposes of the rest of England and Wales at £103,531,000 and £115,451,000 at the two periods, which shows an increase on rateable value of 11 per cent., or half as much again as the increase in the cost of the police.

If it be urged that these figures include a large rural area, it is possible also to compare other large towns with the metropolis.. By the kindness of friends on the spot, I have received the police statistics of Sheffield and Bradford. Taking averages over a period of years, we have in Sheffield—

It is, therefore, clear that in these boroughs, which I cannot reasonably doubt are fair samples, the rate of increase of the cost of the police is considerably less than that of the rateable value, whereas, in London, the cost increases as rapidly as the rateable value. In Bradford the police cost is equivalent to a rate of less than 5 d., and in Sheffield to one of less than 7d., in respect of which cost they are fair examples of other great towns.

Mr. Evans, in reply to my position that from 1868 till to-day the police "have been practically living up to the ninepenny rate," says that from January 1, 1880, to March 31, 1883, the police rate was reduced to 8 d., which was equivalent to a gross reduction of £97,000. Mr. Evans also states that £100,000 has been saved on the cash balance. I must say that I think that these facts, instead of proving me to have

made, as Mr. Evans says, "a serious mistake," entirely corroborate my statement above quoted. They show that the total rate during the whole twenty years falls short of 9d. per annum by an amount equal to less than a threehalfpenny rate on one year of the present rateable value. Mr. Evans further claims as a saving a sum of £370,000 spent on new police stations during the period in question. Even if we grant this, it does not affect the correctness of my statement that the police have been, practically living up to the ninepenny rate. But I deny the propriety of excluding it from the police expenditure, for, small though it be in comparison with the total amount, it rather serves to corroborate my contention that the police authorities "have got a ninepenny rate and they take care to spend it.'

66

I have now put on its large lines the whole of the question really at issue. But there are one or two points in which Mr. Evans finds fault with my figures, which I am called upon to allude to. I will do so, however, very shortly, because it is the main point that the public are really concerned with, and not any dispute as to details which may exist between Mr. Evans and myself. The first point in which Mr. Evans finds fault with me is for my comparison of the years 1878 and 1888. I stated with respect to these years that during that period the population in the metropolitan police area has increased by 23 per cent., the rateable value by 38 per cent., and the cost of the police by 44 per cent." Mr. Evans finds fault with the comparison of these two years, while stating that it is natural I should compare them. He points out that the expenses of 1878 were unusually low, and those of 1888 unusually high. That the expenses of 1878 were lower than those of the years either immediately preceding or following it I admit, and, in so far as this is the case, the cost of 1878 would need to be increased for the purposes of comparison to the extent of £25,000. This gives a gross cost of £1,100,000 in 1878 as compared with £1,542,812 in 1888, or an increase of 40 instead of 44 per cent. As to the cost of 1888 being so much higher than it ought to be for purposes of comparison, I cannot see this; for the gross cost of the police for the last five years has been

and I see in these figures no particular indication that the cost in 1888 has risen more than in preceding years.

Mr. Evans, for purposes of comparison, prefers to take five-year periods. I may say at once I have no objection to offer to such a method. It is in some respects much preferable to comparing pairs of years. But no comparison, either of years or of periods, can do

more than illustrate the fact which I have stated, and which is not controverted or controvertible, that the cost is practically a ninepenny rate. But I cannot agree for a moment to striking off, as Mr. Evans does, the superannuation fund, and the awards paid under the Riot Acts. Both of these appear to me to be justly charges on the police fund, which has to stand by the results of its own miscalculation or mismanagement. And as to the capital outlay on sites and buildings, which Mr. Evans also thinks should be excluded, I.have already said that I regard that outlay rather as a corroboration of my statement, that the police "have got a ninepenny rate, and they take care to spend it." I have, however, already shown how small a factor it really is in the total consideration, and, therefore, it is of little use contesting whether it ought to be included in making comparisons or

not.

I stated that the pay and clothing of the police have not increased so fast as their total cost. This is not denied; it is, in fact, corroborated by Mr. Evans' own figures, where the administrative charges are shown to have increased much more rapidly than anything else. I think this, so far as it goes, quite corroborates my statement, that the increase largely lies in those items "whose inordinate and disproportionate increase is exactly what naturally results when the control is not in the hands of those who have to pay. In fact, the great increase lies exactly in those items in which, if a business man were to find the costs of his business rising, he would immediately, unless he wanted to get into bankruptcy, set about to make a complete change."

It seems to me, as I have said, that Mr. Evans' figures give the best proof of the truth of these words, when he shows that in a period of time during which the pay of the police has increased 33 per cent., and the clothing 16.82 per cent., the administrative charges have increased 41.80 per cent. But the illustration I have given has been to take a few of the items, which appear separately in the accountsviz., Fire and light, books, printing, and stationery, postage, newspapers and advertisements, travelling expenses, law charges, extraordinary expenses, and special expenses, which, collectively now amounting to about £30,000, have more than doubled in the last ten years. Mr. Evans attacks two of these items, viz., "newspapers and advertisements" and "special expenses." As to the cost of newspapers and advertisements, which in 1878 was £224, and in 1888 was £1373, he points out that this is largely an expense peculiar to the year 1888. This I do not doubt. He says that its exceptional nature in 1888 may be gathered from the fact that in the five years ending in the year 1887 the average was only £323. This does not, however, give a very correct view of the progress of the item, which, during the five years in question, has been pretty nearly continuously progressive,

amounting during these years respectively to £186, £121, £228, £430, £648, and to £1373 in 1888. I think, therefore, there is very good reason to refer to the rise in this item, and to regard the £1373 as not so wholly exceptional. Mr. Evans speaks of it as "not a large amount." That is true, but it is to be remembered that I am only referring to it as one of a number of points, and in illustration of the meaning of a certain general statement. The other item in the above list which Mr. Evans refers to is the item "special expenses," and, as he calls it "perhaps the worst example of Professor Stuart's blunders,” I am very willing to leave it for my readers to judge from the following what the character of these may be.

I

In the police accounts for 1878 this item called "special expenses stands at £1355, and in 1888 the same item stands at £3245. have stated that to be an increase of 140 per cent., and so it is. Mr. Evans explains the details of this item: he says the whole amount in 1878 was for the conveyance of naval prisoners to gaol, and "of course has nothing to do with the cost of the metropolitan police, the whole charge incurred being repaid by the Admiralty, as a reference to the receipt side of the account clearly shows." He then points out that the "special expenses" of 1888 included £663 of a similar kind, £805 for the police jubilee medal, £1485 for the enrolment of special constables, and £292 for awards under the Riot Damages Act, in all £3245. It seems to me that the items of £1485 and £292 are most properly included in a list of increased petty costs, and if the similar sum be omitted from both years, the result is to increase rather than to diminish the percentage of increase.

The fact is, this method of answering an opponent-accusing him of blunder and recklessness because of some mistaken or misstated detail which is not material to the main issue-is a good deal in vogue in public discussion nowadays among more prominent disputants than those who maintain the credit of the metropolitan police system.

There is only one other point, so far as I know, which I have not referred to, and that is the one in which Mr. Evans accuses me of "culpable recklessness of assertion." We shall see what that comes to. I said, "The police of London are dearer than the police of any other great town in Britain, whether you take the cost per head of the population, per mile of street, per inhabited house, or in any other way." And how does Mr. Evans show the culpable recklessness of this assertion? By stating that the return from which I quote shows "that, out of the 23 boroughs and towns which it embraces, the cost per acre in 16, and the cost per mile of street in 12, exceeds the similar costs of the metropolitan police, while in two boroughs the cost" per constable is more than it is in the metropolis."

Now, as to the first point, I never said anything about the cost per

acre.

The case of the area of the metropolitan police district, which

זי.

covers 440,891 acres, stretching far into country regions, is not, in respect to the cost per acre, comparable with those boroughs where the limit of the borough is practically that of the houses. Thus, Liverpool, which has between the eighth and ninth part of the inhabitants of the metropolitan police district, has only the eightieth part of the acreage. As to the cost per mile of street, Mr. Evans is in error, and has omitted to observe the foot-note, which shows that, whereas the length of street is taken in the other towns, the length given in London is that of the constables' beats, which thus doubles it in many cases, as the streets are patrolled on both sides. No doubt from column 22 of the return referred to, it certainly, on the first view, appears that the cost of the metropolitan police per mile of street is £147 4s. 10d., whereas that in Liverpool, for instance, is £297 18s. 94d.; but, whereas the mileage is given in the metropolitan police district as 7916 miles, it is given in Liverpool as only 277, for a population of more than a ninth the amount. The extraordinary mileage in London is explained, however, by the foot-note I have already referred to, from which it is evident that the figure of £147 4s. 10d. refers, not to mile of street, but to mile of constable's beat; and further, the same figure, like that of the acreage, is largely vitiated for purposes of comparison by the country portion of the area, whose roads are included, I am informed, in the 7916 miles. As to the cost per constable, that is clearly a totally different matter, and the police are by no means always dearest where the cost per constable is highest. And yet on such a basis as this Mr. Evans accuses me of " culpable recklessness of assertion." I should add that the police in London cost 4s. 11d. per inhabitant, and £1 12s. 4d. per inhabited house. In both these respects, as well as in the rate per pound levied, their cost greatly exceeds the cost similarly reckoned in other towns. The corresponding figures, for instance, in Liverpool are respectively 3s. and 15s. 5d., in Sheffield they are respectively 2s. Old. and 8s. 10d., and in Bradford respectively 2s. 2d. and 9s. 6d.

The only remaining part of Mr. Evans' paper which seems to require notice is that in which he enumerates the points to which attention will have to be paid in the transference of the police. He refers to these in all cases in order to aggravate the difficulty of the transference. I might remind my readers that when the metropolitan police was created in 1829 the arguments of those who preferred the old system were directed in the same way to the conclusive demonstration of the impossibility of working the new one. So it is here, and it is not unnatural that officials trained in an existing system should view any material change in it with alarm. It is always so. Well, we are as well aware as Mr. Evans that the following matters will have to be attended to. The police transferred to the County Council of London