§ MR. EYKYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Serjeant George Lewis, 1 B, Stephen Fairchild, 91 B, and Daniel Burden, 363 B, who were fined by Mr. Arnold, the Police Magistrate, on 4th of June 1868, for having been guilty of stating falsehoods on oath, and that he had come to the conclusion that on the side of the Police lay the perjury, whether the above-named Policemen are still retained in the force?
MR. BRUCESir, the facts of this case are not accurately stated in the hon. Gentleman's Question. No charge was made against these men of having been guilty of stating what was false. They were charged only with neglect of duty, and the facts are briefly these—Some persons witnessed a fight between women in Eaton Square, and called on the three policemen, named in the Question, to interfere to prevent its being continued. According to the statement of the persons who appealed to the policemen, the latter neglected to interfere. The case was heard before Mr. Arnold, the police magistrate, who was of opinion that the police had been guilty of neglect. He accordingly fined them, and, in consequence of that decision, my right hon. Friend and predecessor the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) inquired into the circumstances, and obtained from Mr. Arnold a Report of the whole proceedings. After consideration of that Report the right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty not to dismiss the men, but to retain them in the force. I may, at the same time, tell my hon. Friend I have not the slightest doubt that if they had been found guilty of perjury they would have been instantly dismissed. In the present instance there was a conflict of evidence, and there being a doubt, my right hon. Friend opposite gave the benefit of that doubt to the accused. Two of them still remain in the force, but the third was subsequently dismissed for misconduct.