HC Deb 21 May 1885 vol 298 cc1022-5
MR. JAMES STUART

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will direct that there be laid upon the Table of the House a copy of the depositions of the witnesses or of the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence which was adduced in the case of the woman Jeffries, who was lately convicted of keeping disorderly houses in Chelsea; whether he has received any communication from the magistrate who adjudicated on the case explanatory of the leniency with which this woman was treated, and of the reason for which a fine was inflicted and not a sentence of imprisonment; and, whether he will grant an unofficial and impartial investigation by a Committee of this House into the whole of this case and its attendant circumstances, and also into the case of Inspector Minahan, and the cir- cumstances attending his dismissal from the Police Force, and how far these were connected with the case of the woman Jeffries? The hon. Member had also the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the sentence of six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, passed on Thursday last at the Middlesex Sessions on James Barrett for keeping a disorderly house in Clerkenwell; and, whether the great discrepancy between this sentence and that passed on the woman Jeffries is in any way due to the social difference between the persons concerned in the two cases?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

This was not the sentence of a magistrate, but of the Court of Quarter Sessions. I have no authority to revise sentences, except in connection with the prerogative of mercy. Therefore, the magistrate or the Court owe no responsibility to me for the sentences which they pass. That would be to confound the Executive and Judicial functions. I cannot lay the depositions with a view to a Committee inquiring into the matter. I think it would be a most unsafe and dangerous thing to invite this House to take upon itself the office of reviewing sentences and examining the evidence upon which they are founded. My hon. Friend points to another sentence, apparently by the same Court, and asks me to say whether I think the two sentences were not inconsistent, and whether they were not founded upon some improper motive apparently of the Court with reference to social differences. I cannot compare sentences, nor can I inquire into the motives of the Court; but I have made myself acquainted with these facts regarding the man named, that he had previously been sentenced to terms of eight months', three months', and six months' imprisonment for warehouse-breaking, keeping a brothel, and other offences; and, therefore, it appears that the sentences may have differed with reference to the previous character of the two prisoners. As to the second part of the Question, I have done what is incumbent upon me to satisfy myself that the conduct of the police has not been improper in this matter. I am responsible to this House for the conduct and discipline of the police; and I think it would be very unsafe to agree to the course proposed by my hon. Friend—namely, to investigate the subject by a Committee of this House. The ease of Mr. Minahan was brought before me more than a year ago, and I very carefully inquired into it then, and I have now read the papers again. Minahan was at that time an Inspector of Police. He brought a great number of charges not connected with this matter of Mrs. Jeffries alone. That was the incident only of a great number of charges which he made against various officers, both superiors and subordinates, in the Force. I ordered a strict inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and the District Superintendent. They made a careful inquiry into the matter, and I examined the case myself. It was brought under my notice by the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), and I will read what I wrote to him on the 28th of January, 1884. That will show plainly enough that it was not connected with this particular case:— I have before me a Petition praying for the re-instatement of Minahan as an Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force. I had already inquired into the case, and ascertained that Minahan's resignation was voluntary. He had been an Inspector, and in consequence of the unfavourable reports of his conduct he was put down to the rank of sergeant, whereupon he resigned; and he afterwards put pressure in all sorts of ways upon me to re-instate him. His resignation was voluntary, and was consequent upon his reduction to the rank of sergeant. After the most careful inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and District Superintendent into a series of charges which he brought against the Superintendent of the Division and other officers, all of which were proved to be without foundation, I see no ground to review the decision of the Commissioners. I may mention that Minahan had done the same thing in another Division in which he had previously served; and on that occasion, in consideration of his length of service, he was merely transferred to a different Division, and he expressed his gratitude for the leniency which was shown to him. Well, I came to the conclusion which I had stated in January, 1884, and I have seen no occasion to alter it since; but if my hon. Friend or anyone else can bring any further circumstances to my knowledge which ought to affect this decision, I will most carefully inquire into them, with a desire that justice should be done in the case. It has been suggested that in the prosecution of Mrs. Jeffries the police in one way or another connived or desired that the case should he hushed up, or a light sentence passed. I am prepared to say, from my knowledge of the case, that there is no foundation for that aspersion. If there were very grave suspicion of such a thing it would be my duty to interfere. But the police did not conduct this prosecution; they had nothing to do with it or the sentence. I have before me a Report of a Committee of the Chelsea Vestry acknowledging the value of the services rendered them by the police in closing disorderly houses, and I am bound to say I do not believe they have acted improperly in the matter.