§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the police applied for the warrant upon which Chapman and Kemp were arrested; and, if so, why they did not proceed against them by summons; why the warrant, which was issued on the 4th May, was not acted upon until the 8th May; whether Chapman and Kemp were arrested in Sancroft Street, where they had assembled with a number of other persons for the purpose of holding a meeting, as usual; whether, at the hearing of the charge, the police, in reply to the magistrate, stated that Chapman and Kemp were known to them, and that they would appear on remand; and, whether Chapman and Kemp were then released upon their own recognizances?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)
(who replied) said: The police applied for a warrant because Chapman and Kemp could not be arrested at the time of the committing of the offence, and their addresses were not known. The hon. Member is aware that the issue of a warrant, in the first instance, is left to the discretion of a magistrate, and must be preceded by an information on oath. I understand that May 8 was the first day upon which Chapman and Kemp were seen after the issue of the warrants. Chapman was arrested in Kennington Road on the way to Sancroft Street. There were a number of persons assembled there at the time, and he did express himself to the effect that he had intended to address a meeting. He appeared, however, to be too late to do so. Kemp was arrested in Blackfriars Road. After being arrested Chapman and Kemp gave their addresses, and accordingly the police made at the bearing the statement set out in the hon. Member's fourth Question. They were released on their recognizances, the police offering no 1691 opposition, as the addresses had been given.