MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. W. Harman, of Old Brompton, Kent, who was arrested by the Metropolitan Police at the Eton and Harrow Cricket Match, on a charge of stealing an opera-glass which proved to be his own; whether it is not the fact that Mr. Harman was able on arrest to give the most complete and satisfactory 1173 evidence as to his name, address, and position, but was nevertheless detained in prison from Friday to Monday, without having the opportunity of telegraphing or writing to his wife and friends; whether a gentleman was not arrested at the same match last year, under similar circumstances, on a charge of stealing an opera-glass which proved to be his own; whether he was not afterwards confined to his bed for three or four months from illness brought on by the treatment he then received; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made and proper compensation awarded to Mr. Harman, and take such steps as may for the future protect persons attending the Eton and Harrow Cricket Match from being arrested and sent to prison without reasonable grounds for suspicion?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSSir, I suppose the case turns upon the manner in which the police have acted. I cannot promise compensation or anything of the kind in this case. The magistrate informs me that when this prisoner was charged before him, the constables gave their evidence with great deliberation, and a full note was taken of it by the clerk. The prisoner did not at that time impugn their statements, and did not attempt to cross-examine them, and no application was made for bail, which certainly would have been granted. The magistrate was very much struck by the silence of the prisoner, and was inclined to believe that it was because he had nothing to say. I do not think that under such circumstances the magistrate can be blamed for sending him to prison on remand. Unfortunately, the same gentleman was arrested last year. [Mr. GORST: Not the same gentleman.] Oh, another gentleman. I beg pardon. He was brought before the same magistrate; the police gave their evidence, and in consequence of that evidence the magistrate at first refused to admit him to bail. It afterwards appeared that he was not a likely person to commit larceny, and he was accordingly discharged. In this case the magistrate thought that the evidence of the police was not carefully given. I do not think that there is any ground for compensation in this case. With regard to the information as to his treatment at the hands of the police there must be some mistake, because he was undoubtedly allowed to write to his 1174 wife. The gentleman who was arrested in 1877 was seen by the surgeon, was under no treatment while in prison, and made no complaints. He was visited by his father every day during the five days he was under remand, and also by his solicitor, and was supplied by his friends with a liberal allowance of food. He made no complaint whatever.