§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the severe censure of Mr. Vaughan, at Bow Street Police Court on Wednesday the 9th, on the conduct of the police in refusing admission to certain persons at the police station on Saturday last, when they had attended to tender evidence in favour of persons charged with assault, and arrested in Trafalgar Square; and, if he will take steps to give the police magistrate's censure some practical effect?
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the conduct of the police in Trafalgar Square on Saturday last, and to their evidence in the Bow Street Police Court, at the trial of a Mr. Thompson, on Wednesday last, alleging that stones had been thrown in the Square on that occasion; and, whether he will direct the Chief Commissioner of Police to make a special inquiry into their conduct, which elicited severe comment from Mr. Vaughan, the magistrate at Bow Street?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)The rule and the practice which ought, in my opinion, to be followed is to admit to the police station persons who apply for admission in order to testify in favour of an accused person. On some occasions this is impracticable, when crowds follow prisoners to a station. On the evidence before Mr. Vaughan I understand that he thought that the police were to blame for not having admitted certain witnesses who appeared in defence of Mr. Thompson. I have caused full inquiry to be made; and I am informed that these witnesses were kept back in the first instance as they were accompanied by a disorderly crowd pressing into the station, and when their application to be let in as witnesses was made at another part of the station premises the charges had already been taken. Mr. Vaughan informs 47 me that he discharged the defendant Thompson because upon the whole evidence he thought the blow given by him to a police constable was accidental and not wilful. I am not aware that he censured the conduct of the police in the Square or in the Court.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, whether one of the persons refused admittance was the mother of the boy, and whether she was ejected by the police with foul language?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have no information to that effect. Mrs. Thompson and two men were kept back in the first instance. They then went round to the entrance in the station yard; but the Inspector told them the charge had already been taken.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMWill the right hon. Gentleman insist on an inquiry as to whether the woman Thompson was dismissed and called by a foul epithet by the policeman, she being a perfectly respectable woman?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mrs. Thompson's poverty gives the police a right to call her by this foul name?
§ MR. CONYBEAREWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake to institute such an inquiry that the public concerned may have some confidence in the proceedings?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that not having had any answer to that Question he would put another—whether it was a part of the duties of the police to address foul and abusive language to unoffending persons?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKEROrder, order! That does not arise out of the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI have another Question to ask. It is whether, in view of the fact that some of us will be in Trafalgar Square to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman will state, for the guidance of ourselves and the police, whether we have not a right to circulate in Trafalgar Square?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKEROrder, order! That again does not arise out of the Question on the Paper. If the hon. Member has an independent Question to ask, he must wait until the Questions are disposed of.
§ Subsequently,
§ MR. CONYBEAREinquired, whether the police had any authority to hustle persons when they stopped for a moment to speak to personal friends in Trafalgar Square; also, whether the police were authorized to interfere with persons who might be walking or standing in the Square, when no attempt to hold a public meeting was being made by anybody?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question to which he must be aware that the answer is obvious and can only be in one shape. If he merely puts the Question with the intention of throwing obloquy on the police, it can hardly be proper for me to answer it.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI have done nothing of the kind. I have asked the Question, as I have a perfect right to do, because what I referred to happened to myself. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the police have no authority, then I will ask whether he will permit me to lay evidence before him, and whether he will act upon that evidence, to prove that the police did hustle inoffensive persons, and did use insolent language to them? If the right hon. Gentleman says that the police have no such authority, I shall claim protection at his hands, and ask that the police, whose conduct has been reflected upon, shall be properly punished.
§ [No reply.]