§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that, by the direction of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, the money raised by the police will not be handed to Henry Goodchild, late a constable in the Force, such money and subscriptions having been promised to Henry Goodchild in order to recoup him for expenses incurred when seeking for an increase of pay, which was subsequently granted?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI believe a subscription was made and handed to H. Goodchild during the time that meetings were held on the subject of an increase of pay; but no instructions either to pay or withhold it were given by the Commissioners. Subsequent to that, so far as I am aware, no money or subscriptions have been raised by the police and promised to H. Goodchild in order to recoup him for expenses incurred when seeking for an increase of pay, and therefore no directions have been given by the Commissioners to withhold it. Subsequent to the dismissal of H. Goodchild from the police force application was made by him to the Commissioners to sanction a subscription to meet certain charges for which he was held liable in connection with those proceedings. He was informed that if a correct statement of the expenses incurred by him on account of police meetings held prior to the 16th of November, 1872, supported by vouchers, &c, were fur- 626 nished, it would be considered whether, consistently with the Secretary of State's instructions, a police subscription could be authorized, and it was added that a subscription for expenses incurred sub-sequent to his dismissal could not be sanctioned.