§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEbegged to ask the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority a portion of the K division of the Metropolitan Police were ordered, on the 5th and 12th of April, to attend Divine service in St. Thomas's Church, Stepney, and in default of so doing were subjected to military drill? In order that the House might clearly understand the question, he would state a few facts. On Wednesday, the 5th of April, as he had been informed, there came down a peremptory order that 130 or 140 men of the division of police to which he had referred should attend service at St. Thomas's Church, Stepney, at half-past twelve o'clock that same day. The promulgation of this order created great amazement among the men. The alternative at the same time proposed was, that if they refused to go to church they should undergo an extra drill. One hundred of the men, after expressing their surprise at this unusual proceeding, consented to go to church. Thirty of them and one sergeant preferred the drill. These were Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters. On Wednesday, the 12th inst., the same thing again occurred. The men murmured and expressed their dissatisfaction, but the majority of them consented to go to church. Thirty-eight of them, however, refused, and were sent to drill. These were occurrences of so singular a character in this country of religious freedom, that he could not but think that some explanation was required respecting them. When men entered the police force it was not customary 684 to make any inquiry of them as to the religion they professed; but this was the first occasion he had ever heard of, in which, without regard to the religious feelings of the men, coercive measures were used to compel them to attend the Divine service of the Established Church.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. Member was not quite correct in his facts. No orders had been given for a compulsory attendance at Divine worship, nor had the men been subjected to any additional drill for not attending. The facts were these: many men in the force were precluded, by the nature of their duties, from attending Divine service on Sundays; but it was found practicable to afford an opportunity of voluntarily attending church on Wednesdays to those who were prevented from doing so on Sunday, and several of the men cheerfully availed themselves of that regulation. It was found, however, that those men who did not wish to attend church had nothing to do between the time of being inspected and the time of going to their pay (Wednesday being the pay-day), and it was considered a judicious regulation that those who did not wish to go to church should have their drill in that half-hour. It was not an additional drill, but was substituted for one which, under any circumstances, they would have had to undergo.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEwas still of opinion that the statement he had made of the case was the correct one, and was inclined to believe that an erroneous version of the facts had been communicated to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the men were sent to drill in default of going to church; and he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that he was in a position to show that this was an additional drill, and not in substitution of any other drill to be undergone on any other day. He begged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these facts.
§ MR. WALPOLEThe hon. Member gave notice of the question which he intended to ask this evening, and the information which I procured was with reference to that question, and that question only. I do think that, if the hon. Gentleman means to challenge the accuracy of my information, it is but fair that before he does so, I should be allowed an opportunity of obtaining additional information.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEWell, be it so; but be it remembered that what I stated' was, that the men were compelled to go to 685 drill in default of going to church, and that statement the right hon. Gentleman has not controverted.