MR. GILPINsaid, he must preface the Question of which he had given Notice by stating that the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) had informed him that the gentleman who was threatened with this outrage bore the highest character; and, in justice to the 462 police, he was bound to say that since he had come to the House he had received a telegram to the effect that the police of Manchester had re-considered their determination, and ostensibly offered Mr. Johnson protection; but the arrangements gave him no protection whatever, and were perfectly useless to him. He therefore would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a statement in "The Times" newspaper that a manufacturer at Manchester is unable to sleep in his own house, or to let it be publicly known where he resides, for fear of outrage on the part of workmen of a trades union; that the said gentleman has been refused the protection of the Manchester Police, except on the payment of 8d. per hour for each man; and, if he can state if such report be correct; and, if so, if the Government intend to take any steps to put a stop to such a state of things?
MR. BRUCESir, I have read the report in The Times; but I am unable to say whether the facts quoted by the hon. Member are correct or not. I have been in communication with the Manchester magistrates and the local authorities generally upon this subject. It appears that two outrages were committed on the same night, one being an attempt to burn a stackyard of the gentleman referred to within the borough of Manchester, and the other an attempt upon his life outside the borough. I presume, therefore, the application for personal protection would have been made, not to the borough police, but to the police of the county in which the house stood. Application has been made to me by the magistrates to join them in offering a reward for the discovery of the offenders; they propose to offer a reward of £500, and I have, on the part of the Government, consented to add a reward of £100, together with a pardon to any offender who will give evidence leading to the conviction of the others. With respect to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that, in ordinary cases of danger to life and property, it is the duty of the local authorities to furnish the necessary protection; and when the danger is beyond their power and public disturbance is apprehended, the aid of the central authorities can be called in, and the aid of the troops can be granted if the risk be sufficiently 463 great. In the present case, I have received no such, application, nor have I received any complaint that the magistrates have not done their duty.