MR. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Goodered, cigar merchant, of 2, Rupert Street, Haymarket, whose house, as appears in "The Times" report of March 22nd, was searched by the police on Friday morning last, under a warrant from Mr. Knox; whether there is any reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the newspaper report; and, if not, whether, in the opinion of the Eight honourable gentleman, the police were justified in forcibly entering the bed room of Mr. Goodered's wife, she being very ill in bed at the time, and also in causing a female searcher to search for brandy in the Docket of the wife of a clergyman, who was with the sick person at the time; and, whether he can explain to the House on what principle Mr. Knox arrived at his decision on the case, which, as reported, was to confiscate the brandy found in the pocket of the lady, while he restored to Mr. Goodered a bottle of champagne, which was found at the same time standing on the dressing-table in the room?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that Mr. Goodered formerly kept a refreshment louse; but, in consequence of frequent prosecutions by the police, he ceased to possess a licence, while he continued to sell liquor. The report of the case in the newspaper referred to was in some respects correct, and in others incorrect; but, as the Question of the hon. Gentleman related to the position of the magistrate 595 as well as that of Mr. Goodered, and the magistrate had supplied him (Mr. Bruce) with a very full report of the ease, perhaps in justice to both, he would be excused for reading it. ["No, no!"] The matter was interesting, as bearing on some Bills then before the House. As the reading of the report would take some time, he might say that Mr. Knox informed him that the search warrant was not given by him, but by Mr. Newton. The police entered the premises on the 15th instant, and the case was heard on the 16th, and adjourned for further evidence. Mr. Knox said that in many respects the newspaper report was very imperfect, inasmuch as it omitted to state several material facts. First, that when the police entered the house they found nine men and women drinking, some of whom were drunk. In one of the glasses on the table there was what appeared to be brandy-and-water. The second omission was, that Mr. Goodered put something into his pocket which looked like a bottle, and proceeded with it into a room, which afterwards turned out to be the room occupied by his wife, who, it was said, was ill in bed. The third omission was, that the same inspector had been met three weeks before with the same excuse, and he at that time retired. On this night, believing that he was imposed upon by Mr. Goodered, he asked for a medical certificate, and, failing to obtain this he expressed his determination to send for the female searcher. Upon this, Mr. Goodered invited him to enter the room, but he declined to do so until the woman came. With respect to the clergyman's wife, upon whose person the spirits had been found, she was, it was said, a constant visitor with her husband both at this house and other houses of a similar character, and had assisted in the concealment of these liquors. Neither she nor any other person came forward to give evidence; and although the case was postponed for a week, no evidence was even then offered to invalidate the statement of the police. Under these circumstances Mr. Knox thought the case was made out; but inasmuch as it was possible that the woman was ill, and the champagne not intended to be concealed, while the brandy was concealed, he forfeited the brandy and not the champagne.
§ MR. OSBORNEI rise to Order. I am sorry to interrupt the interesting recital of my right hon. Friend; but may I ask, is all this in Order—I mean the reading of these enormous documents?
§ MR. SPEAKERreplied that it might be questioned whether the Question was in Order; but it having been put to the Minister, he could not answer it without entering into details.
§ MR. OSBORNEWas the Question in Order, Sir?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the hon. Member, I am bound to state that the House of Commons, in these inquiries, condescends to very minute particulars.