§ COLONEL EDWARDESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to letters that appeared in "The Times" on June 3rd and June 11th, signed "Daniel Mathieu, B.A.;" and, whether a strict investigation has been made into the conduct of the police who wrongly apprehended Mr. Mathieu, also into the truth or otherwise of the statements made in those letters; and, if he has any objection to state the result of such investigation?
MR. BRUCEIn reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that my attention has been directed to those letters, which appeared in The Times, and that a strict investigation was immediately made into the circumstances of the case and into the conduct of the officers who had been implicated by the charges contained in those letters. The facts of the case, as far as I have been able to ascertain them, are these—On Saturday, the 3rd of June, there was a large assembly of people in the Parade behind the Horse Guards to witness a review. Some detectives, in plain clothes, were stationed there to watch for pickpockets. One of these detectives saw a person whose conduct he deemed suspicious, whom he followed for some time; but at length, believing that the person in question had discovered his object, he spoke to two other detectives, also in plain clothes, and informed them of his suspicions. The result of the observations of the two detectives was to satisfy them that on more than one occasion the person whom they were watching had attempted to pick the pockets of some women, whereupon they took him into custody, and conveyed him at once to the police court, where, owing to the case of Boulton and Park being heard, it was impossible that his case could be disposed of that night. The prisoner was then conveyed to the Bow Street Station, where he was asked to give his name and address. He absolutely refused to give his residence, but gave what eventually turned out to be a wrong name. However, in the course of the evening he did state where his residence was, and the next—Sunday—morning the police of their own accord went to his residence to make inquiries with refer- 261 ence to his position and employment, I when they saw his wife, to whom they communicated what had occurred. At 12 o'clock on that Sunday morning his wife came to see him, and he then, for the first time, applied for a message to be sent to his friends, which request would have been immediately complied with had it not been that the presence of his wife made it unnecessary. I regret exceedingly that this long delay occurred; but it was the opinion of the magistrate, before whom the case was heard, as well as of the Commissioners of Police, that these men, who had been selected to perform the duties of detectives in consequence of their previous good character and trustworthiness, had only been performing their duty in the course they had pursued. The magistrate dismissed the case with a warning to the defendant, and stated that the detectives had only done their duty. Therefore, although it is quite possible—and I hope that such is the case—that they were mistaken in their suspicions, I cannot come to the conclusion, in the face of the opinion entertained by the magistrate and by the Commissioners of Police, that these men were acting otherwise than in the discharge of their duty, and that they have done anything to call for punishment or for dismissal.