§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Needham Market in Suffolk, on the 6th instant, the local magistrates sent to gaol two members of the Salvation Army, and that the prisoners were marched handcuffed through the streets as if they were felons; whether the prisoners were committed on a charge of obstructing a thoroughfare; whether they were sentenced on the evidence of a Police Inspector named Page, who swore that "one individual, Miss London, was obstructed by them;" whether he is aware that the said Miss London, who was never called as a witness by the police, wrote, under date 9th November, to The Suffolk Chronicle, in reference to this deposition—
Justice demands that I should give to this statement an absolute deniel…. I was not obstructed;whether it is the fact that the prisoners were prosecuted by the police on the instructions of the same magistrates who tried and sentenced them; and, whether, if, on inquiry, he finds the facts as stated, he will consider the propriety of causing the remainder of the sentences to be remitted?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)I am informed by the magistrates of Need-ham Market, Suffolk, that four prisoners were, on November 7, convicted of obstructing a thoroughfare. They were fined 10s., and on the application of their counsel were allowed 14 days for payment, in order to give them time to appeal if they wished. In default of payment three of them were sent to prison on the 5th instant. They were discharged on the 8th. The evidence against the prisoners was that of Inspector Page, who said a Miss London was obstructed. A letter from Miss London appeared in a local paper, denying that she was obstructed; but there seems to be some doubt as to the genuineness of the letter. The Inspector also swore that the thoroughfare was blocked by a crowd of persons, who refused 1768 to move on when requested so to do. The magistrate who gave the instructions for the prosecution was not present when the case was tried. The two male prisoners were handcuffed; one of them had been previously convicted of riotous conduct. There is a Rule in the Suffolk Police Force that handcuffs are not to be used for minor offences, unless the prisoner be a man of bad character and likely to attempt to escape, or when a constable has charge of more than one prisoner. In my opinion, this was not a case in which handcuffs should have been used. I have written to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and expressed a hope that the use of handcuffs may be avoided in similar cases in the future.