§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER, who had a Notice on the Paper to move for an Address for—
Copies of the evidence taken before Mr. Coroner Bedford, on the 27th of April last, of the inquest held on the body of Charles Farmar, found in the streets; and who, being suspected of drunkenness by the police, died on the same day of typhus fever; of the evidence taken before Mr. Hardwicke, also on the 27th of April last, on the body of a woman, supposed to be Harriet Alice Hardy, found by the police when dying in the street, and charged by them with drunkenness, who expired on the same day from apoplexy; of the expressed opinion of the coroners and juries in both cases; and, of the verdicts,said, that a division having been taken on a previous Motion in connection with Supply, he should merely call attention to these cases. The first case to which he referred was that of Charles Farmar, 1065 who was found by a man named Mason, a builder, in Grosvenor Gardens, Pimlico, and by him taken to the police station in Rochester Row. From the police station Farmar was removed to the workhouse, where he was found to be suffering from typhus fever. Tea and brandy were administered to him, and he died on the same day from typhus fever, as shown by the post-mortem examination. It appeared also, from the evidence, that the deceased had got away from his lodgings while suffering from the delirium of fever. Inspector East-wood, when the man was brought to the station, said if the police had refused to bring him it seemed strange a "civilian" should interfere, a most objectionable epithet for a policeman to employ; and, at the inquest, he stated that at first he thought Farmar was drunk, but subsequently, believing he was ill, ordered his removal to the workhouse. He also stated that he thought the man not ill enough to prevent his walking to the workhouse, though, as the result showed, the deceased died two hours afterwards of typhus fever. It was stated by Dr. Bond to be the duty of the police to call in the divisional surgeon in all doubtful cases, as well as in cases of serious illness or of accident; and this brought him to the point to which he wished more particularly to direct attention. It seemed a most reprehensible practice for police-men or inspectors to take it upon themselves to settle whether a man was drunk or suffering from illness. The police were very imperfectly educated, and inspectors themselves only came from the ranks. Even a man of education could not be trusted to decide such cases unless he had medical knowledge, and it was a serious matter that the police should do so, seeing that to lock a man in a police cell while suffering from illness was the surest way to kill him. The second case that occurred was that of a woman named Hardy, who was found in a state of semi-insensibility; she was taken to the police station, was charged with drunkenness, thrust into a cell, and, on the same day, died, though not in the cell, of serous apoplexy, frequently the result of starvation. Both these inquests were held on the same day, and the most careless reader of the newspapers could not but be struck with the off-hand manner in which persons were treated who dropped down in the street. If the 1066 police, paid servants of the ratepayers, found a man rather obscure in his intellect, or incoherent in his language, they thrust him into a cell, far worse in its condition than any that might be found in Venice. Such a proceeding was most unjustifiable; and he could not believe that the people of this country would tolerate such conduct on the part of the police as the reports of the inquests disclosed.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had obtained from the police their version of the story, which differed in some respects from that which the House had just heard. It appeared that the man Farmar was treated with every consideration. He was not put into a cell. After being brought to the station he walked up and down a room, and when the inspector found he was ill and proposed to send him to the workhouse, he asked permission to walk home. This was granted, and a constable accompanied him; but Farmar could not find his home, and he was then taken to the workhouse, where he died. At the inquest, the verdict was "Death from natural causes." The woman Hardy was found lying on the pavement, apparently drunk, and was taken to the station. There she was seen by one of the most careful inspectors in the police force. As she smelt of drink, and stated herself that she had been drinking, she was confined till next morning, when she was brought before Sir Thomas Henry and discharged. A police constable was accompanying her home, when she said she had no home, and the officer then took her to the work-house. The verdict of the jury was that she had died from the effects of drink and want of food. The superintendent of the division stated that the case, unfortunately, was not a solitary one. Even medical men, sergeants and inspectors of police, found it as difficult as constables to determine whether a man was drunk or suffering from illness; and he believed that from the number of cases coming under their notice, constables might be as well able as medical men to decide the fact. The police authorities themselves were more than anxious that these cases should be carefully watched, and if anything more could be done to bring medical knowledge to bear upon them the Home Secretary would gladly give the necessary consent and instructions.