HC Deb 02 May 1887 vol 314 cc550-1
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences of six months' imprisonment with hard labour passed on seven men by Mr. De Rutzen, at the Marylebone Police Court, on the 27th instant; whether Mr. De Rutzen is correctly reported to have stated, that he had intended to send the defendants for trial by a jury, but yielded to the application of Mr. Poland, the Counsel for the Treasury, to deal with the cases summarily; whether the defendants were charged with "riotous conduct and inciting the crowd to commit a breach of the peace," but were dealt with for assaults on the police; and, whether Mr. De Rutzen stated that one of the men was "the instigator of all the mischief;" and, if so, whether, at all events as regards the other six defen- dants, he will consider the advisability of mitigating the sentences passed upon them?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

My attention has been called to the sentences. The seven defendants were charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty, as well as with riotous condnct and inciting to riot. Mr. Poland did suggest that they should be dealt with summarily on the charge of assault, and Mr. De Rutzen stated that he had no objection to that course, although, otherwise, he should have committed the defendants for trial. Mr. De Rutzen stated that the sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour was not too heavy for any of the defendants, and that it was wholly inadequate in the case of Williams, whom he designated as the leader and the person most to blame. I therefore see no reason for mitigating the sentences, against which an appeal lies. Notice of appeal has already been given on behalf of two of the defendants—Williams and Pole.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

asked whether the prosecution had the sanction of the Home Office?

MR. MATTHEWS

I have really not considered the question. There were several charges on the sheet; and the magistrate exercised his discretion as to whether he would convict on the graver or the lighter charge. I have not even considered whether the evidence before Mr. Poland warranted him in dropping the charge of inciting to riot.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Are we to understand that no Minister in this House is responsible for the action of Mr. Poland?

MR. MATTHEWS

I am really not aware of the facts of this question, or how the prosecution came about. There might have been a police prosecution, or a private prosecution; Mr. Poland was not instructed from the Treasury. I will, however, inquire, and inform the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to know.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Pending this appeal, will these men be kept in prison?

MR. MATTHEWS

The law will follow its usual course.