DISGRACEFUL STATE OF UPPER STREET, ISLINGTON.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 12 May 1865)

§ MR. COX
said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he had had his attention called to the disgraceful and indecent proceedings which take place every Sunday evening in the Upper Street, Islington; and whether he will take measures for the protection of the inhabitants of that locality from the outrages and assaults to which they are now weekly subjected? The inhabitants of Islington, who paid about £20,000 a year for police rates, were much scandalized at the manner in which this public thoroughfare was kept by the police, and naturally believed that if they had the management of their own police such disgraceful scenes as were now witnessed in Upper Street, Islington, would, speedily be put an end to. During the last ten or twelve months it had been impossible for respectable women and young females to walk through this street on their return from their respective places of worship without being subjected to the most scandalous outrages by a set of ruffians who congregated on this wide and open thoroughfare, a fine promenade a mile in length, which the inhabitants were so proud of that they compared it to one of the boulevards in Paris. These respectable females were not only subjected to these indecent assaults, but their ears were polluted by language the most 239 horrible it was possible to imagine. He would not state to the House the language that had been communicated to him as being uttered and the acts done by these ruffians every Sunday evening with impunity. He felt satisfied that if the right hon. Baronet had been at all aware of the disgraceful scenes which took place every Sunday night in this locality, and the language used, he would have been the first to condemn it and endeavour to put a stop to it. Unfortunately the inhabitants were deprived of local self-government in this respect, and they were handed over to the authorities at Scotland Yard, who only gave some two or three policeman for the protection of the public against some 1,500 or 1,600 ruffians who assembled in the place every Sunday night with the determination of insulting and annoying not only the respectable inhabitants but every passer-by. Only one policeman was on duty there, and if he took an offender into custody the respectable female who had been assaulted was left to the tender mercies of the ruffian's companions. One man was apprehended last week, and when taken before the magistrate at the Clerkenwell Police Court, he was discharged bcause the female did not attend to prefer the charge against him. Such a decision, he thought, was only likely to aggravate and not lessen the evil complained of, and he very much regretted that the magistrate had not followed the example of another police magistrate and punished the offenders upon proof of the offence without the presence of the female who had been assaulted. In Newington, where a similar state of things prevailed some time ago, the offenders were punished, and he believed that those outrages had since ceased to be perpetrated in that locality. He felt quite satisfied that the Secretary for the Home Department was as desirous as anybody could be to put a stop to proceedings so disreputable, and he trusted he would take the necessary steps to accomplish that object.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that his attention had not been called to the subject before the notice was placed upon the paper by the hon. Gentleman. On inquiry he found why his attention had not been called to the matter. As his hon. Friend had stated, there existed in the neighbourhood referred to a wide and enjoyable walk, which on Sundays was much frequented. Among those who 240 availed themselves of the advantage which this walk offered were a great many disorderly young men, and he feared some disorderly young women also. A complaint was made to Sir Richard Mayne about the conduct of these young people, and no appeal had been made to himself because the inhabitants expressed themselves satisfied with Sir Richard Mayne's answer, and with the police arrangements which he promised should be made for the protection of the neighbourhood. The hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in saying that only one policeman was stationed at the spot, because six policemen were placed there, in addition to the occasional services of an inspector and serjeant. The inhabitants were told that the services of the police alone were not effectual to remedy the evil complained of, but that evidence must be given in any cases of misbehaviour by the person ill-treated, or by some respectable inhabitants who had been witnesses of the ill-treatment. His hon. Friend had alluded to one case in which the prisoner had been discharged by the magistrate. On that occasion evidence was given by the policeman, and a number of the inhabitants attended for the purpose of appealing for protection. The police had also apprehended persons for similar misconduct in Westminster Bridge Road, and Newington, and in these instances the magistrate had committed the prisoners, on the production of sufficient evidence, without requiring the appearance of the young women who had been insulted. On the occasion, however, alluded to by his hon. Friend the prisoner said that he was very sorry for what had been done, and promised that if forgiven he would not again frequent the neighbourhood. The magistrate (Mr. Barker) in discharging him, told him that if he were again brought before him on such a charge he would pass such a sentence on him as would keep him away not only from that, but any other neighbourhood for some time, and in answer to the statements of the inhabitants expressed his determination to act vigorously in the matter. Although the prisoner in this instance had been let off because of the non-appearance of the young woman who had been insulted, the magistrate had not stated his intention of treating every prisoner charged with a like offence in a similar manner. He believed that if any of the respectable inhabitants would take the trouble to give evidence in these cases the magistrate 241 would be fully justified in committing a I prisoner even in the absence of a prosecutrix. He could assure his hon. Friend that there was no unwillingness on the part of the authorities to afford a sufficient number of policemen—not, of course, to watch every single person, but to give such assistance and protection as was required.

§ MR. COX
said, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether, in case six policemen were found to be insufficient to control 1,600 ruffians, an increased force would be granted?

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he did not know that there were 1,600 ruffians. He should hope that the 1,600 persons who frequented this very agreeable walk I were not all ruffians. The young women themselves, too, were not always unwilling I parties to the misbehaviour complained of. The police force should of course vary according to the circumstances of each particular exigency.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he wished to inquire, whether the exclusive responsibility of placing a number of policemen in any locality rested with Sir Richard Mayne; or whether any share of that responsibility rested in the Home Office?

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
If an appeal were made to me, which was not done in this case, because the inhabitants had expressed themselves satisfied with the present arrangement, I should call upon the Commissioner of Police to explain the reason which induced him to fix any number; and if I saw that that number was deficient I would express to him that opinion.