, Member for the North-Western Division of the County of Durham, rose in his place and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the circumstances connected with the arrest of Miss Cass in Regent Street.

The hon. Gentleman desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the circumstances connected with the arrest of Miss Cass in Regent Street. Is it your pleasure that leave be given?

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having accordingly risen:—

I do not think any apology is necessary to hon. Members of this House for calling attention to a subject in which the proper administration of justice and the liberty of the subject are so remarkably identified as they are in the case to which I have the honour of drawing attention. It is not my intention to do more than to lay before the House a simple narrative of the facts, and I shall not attempt by any adventitious aids whatever to enlist sympathy or support. I must say that I very much regret the necessity for bringing on this matter. I certainly was under a complete misapprehension, in common with almost every person with whom I have spoken, as to the answer which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews). I did understand that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) put a Question to him that he intimated his will- ingness to grant further inquiry. I also felt that the right hon. Gentleman gave me a very peremptory and off-hand refusal. But, Sir, I did think that the question was one in which such deep public interest was taken—an interest not confined to the Members of the Liberal Party, but extending to all Parties and sections of the community—that it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman had given a clear and definite answer as to the intentions of the Government with reference thereto, which intentions, I thought, were to institute a thorough and an impartial inquiry. With regard to the facts of the case: Miss Cass is a young woman who has only recently—within the last six weeks—arrived in the South of England. She has lived all her life in Stockton, in the County of Durham, and has borne an absolutely irreproachable character. Some six weeks ago, with her late employer—a Mr. Tomkins—who carried on a large business as a draper in Stockton, she came up to London, and she at once set about for the purpose of obtaining employment in the trade which she had previously carried on as a dressmaker. Some three weeks ago she obtained employment with Mrs. Bowman, who lives at No. 19, Southampton Row. Now, I must also tell the House that Mrs. Bowman is a person of irreproachable character. I was favoured with a visit from the Vicar of the parish in which. Mrs. Bowman lived, and he informed me that he had known Mrs. Bowman for a period of some seven years; that she was a constant attendant at his church; that he had frequent opportunities of seeing her and of understanding her character; and that he was perfectly satisfied that she possessed the highest moral character. I only mention this with reference to Mrs. Bowman, because there is not the slightest doubt that some aspersions were also cast upon the character of Mrs. Bowman by the police officer. Miss Cass, who had been about three weeks in the employment of Mrs. Bowman, and who had not been outside the house at night previously except on one occasion—and then only to a distance of a few yards for the purpose of posting a letter—Miss Cass, at about half-past 8 on Coronation night, went out for the purpose of making some small purchases. She walked down some back streets into Tottenham Court Road, paid a call at a friend's house, whom she found out, and then walked along Regent Street for the purpose of going to Jay's to make a purchase. There was a considerable number of persons about, owing to the fact of its being Coronation night. Finding Jay's shop closed, she was threading her way through the crowd from Jay's in order to go to some other shop, when suddenly she was seized by a constable, and dragged off to the Tottenham Court Road Police Station. She, of course, was very much surprised at this treatment by the police constable; in fact, she informed me—and I can assure hon. Members I have taken every means for the purpose of ascertaining the true facts in connection with this case—that she thought the constable was really doing what he did more in joke than anything else. But he informed her that he was going to charge her—a perfectly innocent and a perfectly moral girl—with solicitation and prostitution. She was taken to the police station, and I have seen the charge sheet in which her name was entered. She was entered in the charge-sheet as "a common prostitute." The police constable stated at the police station that he had seen her on several previous occasions about the streets soliciting gentlemen, in the same manner as on the night on which he alleged she had committed the offence with which she was charged. Having been charged, she was confined to the cell in the usual course, and no complaint can be made about that. Then the same police officer who arrested her called at Mrs. Bowman's establishment. He called Mrs. Bowman out of her house, and informed her that a young woman who was lodging with her had been taken up for prostitution in the streets. I will not enter into particulars as to what was actually said; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—if he will condescend to do so—to pay attention to this matter. It is a matter in which great interest is taken by the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally, who feel that it is necessary that justice should be administered in the highest and the most proper manner. This police constable went to Mrs. Bowman's house, and, in the most offensive manner possible, informed her of the arrest of Miss Cass. Miss Cass was bailed out, and on the following morning she was brought before the police magistrate. I wish at once to say this—that my complaint is not so much against the police constable. The police constable may have made a mistake. It is quite possible that he may have seen her before; but I am not at all satisfied that he had. But he stated that he had seen this young woman several times in Regent Street at night; and, as he swore to that, it points to the recklessness of the statement which he made. But the gravamen of my charge—and I am not going to shirk it—is against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and against the police magistrate who in the first instance investigated this charge. The police constable was put into the box in the ordinary way, I suppose, to give evidence. He gave the evidence of which I have given the substance to the House already, and then the young woman was called upon for her reply. Her reply was what the House might well apprehend—one of indignant denial—and I think if hon. Members had seen the young woman as I have seen her they would be satisfied that she was not likely to be able to endure the torture—which undoubtedly she did endure—in that Police Court without succumbing in the way she did to the treatment which she received. Thereupon the magistrate asked—I believe he asked; I will do him the justice to say that—whether she called any witnesses? Her employer, Mrs. Bowman, came forward for the purpose of giving evidence. Now, I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to something stated by him the other night. He stated, in answer to my Question when I originally put it, that this employer, Mrs. Bowman, did not give her evidence upon oath. It is perfectly true she did not. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, inasmuch as this young woman was not represented by either counsel or solicitor, it was the absolute duty of the police magistrate to afford Mrs. Bowman the opportunity of giving her evidence upon oath. There are experienced police magistrates sitting in this House, and I am perfectly certain that they will bear me out in that statement. I see the hon. Gentleman who worthily filled the position of Chief Magistrate of London (Sir Robert Fowler) bows his head to that statement. Mrs. Bowman volunteered a statement. She said—

"This young woman is in my service. She is a forewoman and dressmaker in my employment. She has never left my house at night, until last evening, during the three weeks she has been in my employment. I had an irreproachable character with her, and I know her to be a modest and a proper young person."

She further said—

"I am perfectly certain she was not out for an improper purpose."

I venture to think that the police magistrate, after that statement was made that this young woman was engaged in honest employment, ought to have been satisfied that she was not out for the purpose of solicitation. But, even if not, and if he thought it right to accept the primâ facie statement of the police constable, the very least he could have done was to have remanded the case for further evidence. But what did this police magistrate do? I do not like to trust myself to give an opinion as to what his conduct was. It speaks for itself. He said he believed she was out for the purpose of solicitation. His exact words were—"I believe she was out for an improper purpose," and then he went on to say this—

"If you are an honest girl, as you say you are, don't walk in Regent Street at night"

—let the House mark the time—9.30 p.m.—

"for if you do, the next time you are brought here you will be sent to prison or be fined after this caution."

Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he considers that that is language which it is right and proper for a judicial officer to use? I am a very humble member of the Profession to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs; but I say this, without fear of contradiction by any other member of that Profession—that when a charge of that kind is made, and that charge is negatived in the way in which that charge was negatived, and the magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, chooses to discharge the person accused, he has no right whatever to send out that person with a brand upon her character. I am not afraid of the issue I have raised. I blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I blame him in common with the inhabitants of this Metropolis. I blame him for this—when the Question was put to him the right hon. Gentleman said that he con- sidered the evidence conclusive. I do not complain of the treatment which I and others received; but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for enabling me to bring the matter before the House. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say, in answer to my right hon. Friend, that he considered the evidence of the police constable was conclusive. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. For my own part—I have not Hansard by me—I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in answer to the Question. Now, the evidence of the police constable was totally uncorroborated. It was given not merely without a particle of corroboration, but with the most complete traverse that could be given to it in a case of that kind—namely, that the young woman bore a most respectable character. Those are the facts of the case which I have had the honour of laying before the House; and I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that, holding the responsible position he does, it is his duty to see that justice is done. He sits in this House for the purpose of enabling grievances of this character to be redressed, and it is idle and futile on his part to say that he has not the machinery at hand in order to visit with punishment or correct the blunders of those who have been guilty of a breach of duty. I beg to tell him he has that machinery at his command. He is the statutory head of the Police Force of the Metropolis; he can direct and see that an inquiry is instituted, and that a policeman, if he has exceeded his duty, is punished. Nay, more, it is within his province, and it is his duty also, if a magistrate has exceeded his duty, to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor. He says this young woman has her legal remedy. What is her legal remedy? I wonder the right hon. Gentleman dares to say that. Her legal remedy is to bring an action against the police constable. She can go through the farce of that procedure with the delay inseparable therefrom, and then the judgment would be absolutely fruitless. There are others far abler than myself who might have brought this matter forward, but they did not do so; and, therefore, as a very humble Member of the House, notwithstanding the discouragement I received in certain quarters, I felt it my duty to press this matter, and I sincerely hope it will lead to something more than a reprimand—to some proper punishment being visited upon those who have been guilty of such an outrageous excess of duty, and to something like an efficient organization of the police of this great Metropolis. Since this case has arisen, I have received many communications from all parts of the Metropolis in regard to very great grievances connected with the administration of justice in the Metropolis; and when one comes to consider the stereotyped routine and machinery of the Police Courts—the same magistrates, the same superintendents, the same inspectors, the same family arrangements, as it were—I think it would be well if some change were made by which the exercise of greater independence could be ensured on the part of the magistrates. It may be thought, perhaps, because I am a Radical, that I take an extreme view of the matter; but that such is not the case is abundantly proved by the correspondence I have received. I have long thought that the police magistrates of the Metropolis do not compare favourably with many, even, of the "great unpaid;" and I do hope that the complaint which has been made in this case will meet with some consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and that this House will resolve to maintain its traditions and its character as the vindicator and administrator of justice throughout the Realm. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

I rise to second the Motion. Having been in the country I only heard of this case this afternoon, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) was about to bring it forward, when I felt anxious to second the Motion, in order that I might bear testimony to the character this girl bore before she came to London. I know her father, who was engaged in the Malleable Ironworks in the town she came from, and was the leader of the band connected with those works. I have often seen him in the discharge of his duty there. I know that all his family are respect- able, and I know that the occupation which this young woman followed before she came to town was one of the most respectable character. She was in the employment of Messrs. Carver and Co., one of the most respectable establishments in the Kingdom. The firm employed a large number of dressmakers, under the supervision of a person who might very well be described as a gentlewoman; and everything that went on in the establishment was of a most respectable and proper character. I am sure that anyone employed by that firm, who was suspected of the slightest levity, would be forced to leave at once. I have not yet been able to ascertain, but I believe, that the young women employed in that establishment belong to an association known as the Girls' Friendly Society; and I also know that they are among the most well-behaved young women in Stockton. At the time that Miss Cass left that establishment she was known to be a proper and modest person. When Miss Cass left that establishment she went to Mr. Thompson's, another firm of great respectability, and not one word was heard against her character. As the House has heard the whole of the circumstances respecting this case from my hon. and learned Friend, I feel that I should not be justified in going into it now at any length. As the Representative of the town of Stockton, in which this young girl spent the whole of her life, and in which she was known as a respectable girl until she left there five or six weeks ago, I do not think I should be justified in sitting still and hearing the circumstances detailed as they have been by the hon. and learned Member without urging, in the strongest possible manner, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should give that attention to the case which the hon. and learned Member has suggested, and see that this young woman should have full redress for the injury which has been done her, though she will always have the recollection of that fearful night spent in the police cell under circumstances such as have been detailed by my hon. and learned Friend.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—( Mr. Atherley-Jones. )

I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the warmth, if I may say so, of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). Of course, from their point of view, free as they are from all "shackles" in expressing their judgment on the facts of the case, it is beyond all question that this young woman, Miss Cass, has received a terrible and almost irremediable injury. I can perfectly understand that in their position, as I say, of "unshackled" freedom they should desire to express indignation on the subject; but I cannot help feeling that I am scarcely free—and I hardly think that the House of Commons, looking upon it as a corporate body, is free—to pass any judgment upon the circumstances of the case, which are still, in the "broad" sense, sub judice. [ Cries of "How?"] I will tell you how when you have finished. When I was first addressed a Question on this subject, no doubt the proceedings before the magistrate had come to an end; but I knew nothing of it beyond the report I received from the magistrate, consisting of his own statements as to the "evidence" in the case. My answer, given in the first instance, and of which the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham has complained, was simply a reproduction of the information I had so obtained; but, almost contemporaneously with these Questions being put to me, I could not disguise from myself that public feeling was aroused, and that in various quarters—I do not stop to inquire into the sources—allegations were made that the policeman upon whose evidence the magistrate had given his decision was guilty of perjury, and there were also comments on the conduct of the magistrate about which I do not think I can say anything. That is the difficulty I have in entering into this debate. In substance what the hon. and learned Member asked was that I should make some inquiry, and the hon. and learned Member, a little to my surprise, has repeated his charge that I do not institute, as he calls it, a thoroughly impartial inquiry. [ Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Why not?"] Now the hon. Member below the Gangway who interrupts me should have condescended to indicate to me in what possible way I could institute a thoroughly impartial inquiry.

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to say that I have indicated—I pointed out—that he was at the head of the Police Force of the Metropolis; that it is in his power to cause a quasi -judicial inquiry to be held by the Commissioners of Police into the conduct of the constable; that it was also within his power, assuming the facts to be correct, to have brought the conduct of the police magistrate before the Lord Chancellor.

Of course, I am perfectly aware it is in my power to direct the Commissioners of Police to inquire as to whether the police constable has exceeded his duty or not; but such an inquiry would necessarily be of the most unsatisfactory kind, because it would be a sort of departmental secret; in the second place, the evidence would be without the sanction of an oath; and, in the third place, it was an inquiry that would not exhaust the question whether or not the police constable had been guilty on a particular occasion of perjury, and I conceive that it would be highly unconstitutional for the Commissioners of Police to take upon themselves to convict any member of the Force of perjury.

I have never suggested that.

I do not think I am dealing unfairly with the hon. and learned Member's suggestion when he talks of an inquiry into a matter which involves what I have described, [Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES dissented.] The hon. and learned Member shakes his head; but I do not like even to allude to what was said by the constable for fear of being considered biassed one way or the other; but the evidence was of the character which is not to be explained by the theory set up in this case. I have not indicated the slightest opinion whether it is true or false. I have no right to do so, and I do not think it right to do so. But there is no escape from one or other of those conclusions. If anyone will take the trouble to read what was said "on oath" before the magistrate, either it was true or false. But what I will do is this—if a primâ facie case indicating a criminal offence or a grave violation of duty can be laid before the Commissioners of Police, my conception of what they ought to do, and what I ought to do to stimulate them, is this—not that they should decide the matter by means of a departmental inquiry, but do as had been in other cases—direct a prosecution to be instituted against the policeman. I have not said one syllable to indicate that I am not prepared to take that course. What I have steadfastly declined to do, and what I still decline to do on grounds perfectly Constitutional and legitimate, is to take upon myself jurisdiction which the law does not give me, and institute what the hon. and learned Member calls a quasi -judicial inquiry into a crime, and a crime of a very grave character. I think that to do so will be converting the Departments of the Government into amateur tribunals of a very unsatisfactory kind, because they could not take evidence on oath, and because they have no defined jurisdiction to deal with anything beyond the dismissal of the officer in fault. Those are the grounds upon which I proceeded, and not from any unwillingness to let punishment fall on any officer under my command. If the police constable has done wrong, I have not the slightest desire to shield him, because I feel the warmest sympathy for the young woman-assuming all the facts which the hon. and learned Member has stated to the House to be true. But the course proposed by the hon. Member is quite novel, and, if adopted, will involve consequences disastrous to the public. This case has excited public sympathy; but it is constantly happening in other Courts throughout the country that persons are unjustly accused and convicted of crime. I may be wrong; but, of course, I will bow to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham if he says I am wrong. But if once this House lays down the doctrine that it is my duty to make myself a Court of Appeal, to see that justice is properly and directly administered in every case, whether tried by a magistrate or a jury, you will certainly be enlarging what I think is the most unsatisfactory part of the duties of the Home Secretary-namely, those relating to the prerogative of mercy, in a way which, I think, is not to the public benefit or advantage. The hon. and learned Member calls upon me to review not only the evidence given on oath before a judicial tribunal, but the decision of the magistrate, and to say that the witness who gave such evidence has given false testimony, and that the magistrate, who expressed the opinion that the evidence had convinced him, was a person who had not only neglected his duty, but had gone beyond it. I venture to say with confidence that the Constitution has vested no such privilege in the Secretary of State, and in the responsible position which I fill it would be improper for me to express the opinion I might entertain about the conduct of the magistrate or the conduct of the witnesses. It is no part of my right to visit with official censure and reprimand the conduct of witnesses who have given their testimony on oath, or the Judges who have accepted or rejected that testimony. To assume in my official capacity the right of passing criticism of that kind on the legally constituted tribunals, and still more to hold a thorough and impartial inquiry by such machinery as is in my possession, to pass judgment on a witness who may be tried for perjury, and thereby to prejudice his case before it comes before the tribunals of the country, would be to usurp functions which would be very dangerous. Can the hon. and learned Member doubt that some further legal proceedings are likely to arise out of this case? Miss Cass has civil remedies at her disposal, and may resort to criminal proceedings. One or other proceeding of the kind is extremely likely to arise; but surely the hon. and learned Member does not seriously offer the advice that it will be proper or right for me, as a responsible Minister of the Crown and the Head of a Department, to prejudice those proceedings beforehand by passing judgment on either the policeman, the young woman, or the magistrate? Were I to do anything of the sort, I should be grossly departing from my duty. I also think that the House of Commons is not a fitting tribunal for an investigation of the kind. There are legal modes, both civil and criminal, for reviewing the decision of the magistrate, and I hope that one or other of those modes will be resorted to. So far from being an obstacle to this end, I will afford every assistance which the law permits me to give to Miss Cass in order to vindicate her character, and the policeman to defend himself from the charge brought against him. But I trust that my action will always be kept within the limits which the law imposes upon me.

One statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) will, I think, be accepted as satisfactory by the House, so far, at all events, as one part of this case is concerned. I understood him to say that if a primâ facic case could be laid before the Commissioners of Police he would take care that in that case the matter was subjected to further and judicial inquiry. [Mr. MATTHEWS assented.] I confess that, so far as the conduct of the police constable is concerned, that appears to me to be a satisfactory statement. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that a sufficient prima facie case has already been made out in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), and in the statement of facts which have been laid before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds)? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that Miss Cass must wait for vindication of her character until this judicial injuiry should be held. That this girl should remain under the stigma unnecessarily and unjustly inflicted upon her by the police magistrate sitting in court is unfair and wrong, without, at all events, some opportunity being afforded her, through her friends, to explain the circumstances under which she had been brought into this position. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Durham has stated very clearly and fairly the facts as they have been proved, but he omitted one or two which seem to me to give additional force to his argument. The police constable stated distinctly that he had seen Miss Cass solicit three men one after another in Regent Street. He said that he knew her to be a bad character, and that he had seen her in a similar occupation on three previous occasions during the last six weeks, and especially that he had seen her in Regent Street and Portland Place the night before for three quarters of an hour. I have seen the young woman's employer, whose moral character and great respectability are vouched for by the Vicar of the parish in which she has resided for 18 years, and I have seen the young woman, and, as a matter of fact, I learnt that the girl was not out of the house the night before; and, consequently, it was really impossible that the policeman could have seen what he said he saw. So far from its being the fact that she had been in Regent Street on this business on a previous occasion, she had only been in Regent Street once before in the whole course of her life, and had only been in London for a period of two months, the greater part of which time she had passed either in Trinity Square in the Borough, or at Manor Farm in the suburbs. Therefore, it was absolutely certain that if these statements by independent witnesses are true, either the policeman has committed perjury or made a mistake as to the identity of the person. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary ought not to take it for granted that the only charge against the policeman is one of deliberate perjury, because it is possible that the constable might have taken the wrong person into custody. But there is one suspicious fact which leads to a conclusion in an opposite direction. The constable said, in order to bring the charge within the limits of the Act of Parliament, that he had heard one gentleman say—"It was very hard that he should be spoken to three times in the course of half-an-hour in Regent Street." That did not seem to me, when I first heard it, to bear on the face of it the mark of genuineness. But still more suspicious was the circumstance that the very next day, in the very same court, another policeman brought up another woman charged before the magistrate, and he likewise explained that he had heard a gentleman say—"It was very hard that he should be accosted three times in Regent Street within half-an-hour." So that the words appear to be a sort of police formula, and I consider that they ought to be received with the gravest possible suspicion. I do not want to prejudge the case of the policeman. Possibly he might have been merely guilty of an error of judgment as to identity; but I confidently pronounce the opinion that a girl of whose antecedents so much is known, and about whom so much has been so conclusively proved, was not likely to be found in a situation such a that of which the police accused her; and when we add to that the evident discrepancy in the policeman's evidence it is almost certain that a grievous wrong has been done, which I am very glad to think that this debate will do much to repair. Now I come to the conduct of the police magistrate. I must say I should have thought that any man sitting in the seat of justice, having before him on the one hand a police officer accustomed to give evidence in matters of this kind, and having on the other hand a young girl for the first time in her life in a police court, undefended by any professional assistance, would have felt it his duty to protect her, or, at all events, to have secured the fullest possible opportunity to bring out any defence she might have to make to the charge. Instead of that, what did he do? He asked her rudely what she had to say for herself, and when she has said it he tells her he does not believe her. He is rude, and something more than rude, to the witness called on her behalf, who turns out to be a perfectly respectable woman, and a householder with a business; he winds up by saying that he did not believe her story, but believed that the girl had been guilty of improper conduct, and although he discharged her he advised her not again to go into Regent Street at night and address herself to gentlemen. I confess that I think Mr. Newton ought, at all events, to be called upon, in his own interests, to explain his conduct on this occasion. I myself sympathize, and I am sure the House sympathizes, with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, in his official capacity, did not feel justified in making free criticism upon the action of the police magistrate. On this side of the House, fortunately, we are independent and can make criticisms. If it should turn out, as I am confident it will, when the further judicial inquiry is made, as promised, that this grievous wrong has been done, then I think it would be our duty to ask a further Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, with the view of ascertaining whether he would not think it his duty to bring the conduct of Mr. Newton to the cognizance of the Lord Chancellor.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) has made, as might have been expected, a very powerful speech indeed against the policeman. I admit that if any hon. Member of the House has certain facts placed before him, and feels himself justified in accepting them as accurate, it is not unnatural that he should make such an appeal as has been made in this matter. But the House has to consider what is the real position of this case. No doubt, the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) have acted upon information which they implicitly believe, as does also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; but, if the substantial facts are such as have been alleged, it is hardly possible to conceive that the police constable has made a mistake as to the identity of the accused person in this case. If hon. Gentlemen study the evidence, they will see that there could not have been any mistake of that kind, and that if the police constable's statement is untrue it is a case of wilful perjury. It seems to me that the only effective remedy that can take place in this case is to have a further judicial inquiry. I must say that if these facts are put in writing and laid before the Commissioners of Police or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, they will establish a substantial primâ facie case; and it would, in my opinion, be the duty of those in authority to see that some steps were taken for further investigation. It was not, I respectfully submit, quite a fair thing to attack the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary because he has not at once himself directed further inquiry, when, on consideration, the only proper and satisfactory inquiry is that there should be an opportunity of seeing whether or not this constable has been guilty of perjury. Of course, I myself do not express the slightest opinion upon the merits of the case, for it would be wrong if I did; but, so far as I do express an opinion, I would say that if the statements made are in accordance with fact, then, no doubt, there ought to be an inquiry so far as the policeman is concerned. On the other hand, no one should prejudge the constable, who might be an officer of considerable standing and many years in the Police Force. The proper course to be taken is that hon. Gentlemen who honestly and properly feel that this is a case requiring further investigation should put the statement in writing, giving the names of witnesses, and, if possible, their signatures, so that they could put before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or the Commissioner of Police, the case thus prepared, with the view to its being seen what steps should be taken for a further inquiry. But for the House to turn itself into a Court of Appeal in respect of matters such as this, when they can only act upon the information brought before them, is mnch to be deprecated. I suggest that this matter should be put in the most formal and distinct shape for the authorities, and then the responsibility of either refusing or directing a prosecution would rest with those authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that the magistrate had treated rudely, if not discourteously, a witness who appeared before him. I myself have no knowledge of the way in which the magistrate has acted in that respect, and I must speak with caution on a question of that kind. I cannot, in my position, pretend to criticize his conduct. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Newton has sat for a great many years on the Bench—I believe 30 years—and, so far as I know, I do not think that he has in any way discharged his duty unsatisfactorily to the public. Therefore, the House ought not to prejudge him. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) is free in this matter, and is perfectly entitled to express, and justified in expressing, his opinion on information which he believes warrants him in making the statements we have heard; but I must point out that, if this is a matter in which the magistrate has exceeded his duty in such a way as is deserving of reprimand, it can be brought before the Lord Chancellor, because a magistrate holds office during Her Majesty's pleasure. It does not depend upon the responsibility of the Home Secretary to take the initiative, but it does depend upon the responsibility of any independent gentleman who has sufficient materials before him to justify him in taking so serious and responsible a step as bringing the conduct of a police magistrate before the proper authorities. It would be very wrong of a Gentleman in the position of the Home Secretary in this House, where the police magistrate cannot give an explanation, to pronounce final judgment. I submit that the House has not got the proper materials on which to express a final and conclusive opinion, and it would be assuming a function which I do not think would be in the interests of the House if they were to arrive at such an opinion. I hope and trust that, as far as the police constable is concerned, the matter will be put before the authorities; but, as regards the police magistrate, I ask, in fairness, that the House should suspend its judgment as to his conduct until he has had an opportunity of giving an explanation.

Sir, this is the first time since I have been a Member of the House that I have ever risen in response to an invitation to adjourn the House. On this occasion I rise because no more scandalous and disgraceful episode in the history of the police in London has ever been brought before the House. I am glad to think that it is the intention of the Home Office to institute a careful and rigorous inquiry into the conduct of the police constable, and also into the conduct of the police magistrate. ["No, no!"] I certainly understood that it was the intention of the Home Secretary to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the magistrate as well, and I think that it is quite as important as an inquiry into the conduct of the police constable. I do not know that I have ever seen anything more disgraceful on the part of a police magistrate than that he should tell a young woman who had been brought before him, and who had been discharged by him, that if she was again found walking in Regent Street after half-past 9 she must expect to be suspected of prostitution and solicitation. Is it come to this—that the condition of the Home Office and of the Police Force is such that a decent girl cannot walk out after half-past 9 o'clock at night and breathe the fresh air without running the risk of being taken up before a magistrate and perhaps ruined for life? I know something about this matter. I know very well, in relation to young women coming to London for domestic service, that these cases are frequent, and for one case brought to light there are 50 cases where young women are ruined by the police in this manner, and who, for shame and other reasons, do not make it known that they have been subjected to this treatment. The real fact is that this particular incident is only a sign of what I know exists in the police system of the Metropolis. Blackmail is levied by the police on women who pursue this unfortunate trade all over the Metropolis. I have spoken to 30 unfortunate girls on Clapham Common, near which I reside, and every one of them have accused the police of charging 6 d. a-night to allow them to ply their trade in that particular district. If the Home Secretary will take the trouble to probe this matter to the bottom, he will find this practice exists in almost every place to which these women resort. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first Home Secretary to take this matter to heart, and to relieve the Home Office of the stigma that the leading thorough-faros of the Metropolis are not safe for decent women and for decent men, when they are going about their decent and law-abiding avocations.

I do not stand in the same position as some of the previous speakers on this side of the House, because, although I can speak as an independent Member, I cannot forget that I recently held Office as Home Secretary; and it would, therefore, be wrong for me to use strong language, or to approach the matter in anything but a judicial frame of mind. With respect to the police constable, I think that the statement of the Attorney General ought to be satisfactory to the House. What I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say was that if proper representations were made either to the Home Secretary or to the Commissioners of Police, giving the facts by persons whose conduct had been referred to, the Home Secretary would direct an inquiry, or the Commissioners of Police would, on their own responsibility, direct an inquiry if a primâ facie case had been made out against the policeman, and would direct a prosecution.

That was exactly what I said.

Undoubtedly, then, a primâ facie case has been made out by the declarations which have been made in this House.

Pardon me; I should like to explain. The Director of Public Prosecutions has frequently similar cases laid before him, and he makes inquiries of the witnesses as to whether there was a primâ facie case. That is the kind of inquiry which should be made.

The hon. and learned Member and myself are quite agreed. I presume that a written statement embodying what hon. Members have said will be made by witnesses and laid before either the Home Secretary or the Commissioners of Police; and then, as undoubtedly there is a primâ facie case, the conduct of the policeman will be tried in the proper manner, and justice will be done. As to the magistrate, I am bound to say that, while not for a moment concluding whether he did or did not do a very unfortunate—nay, a very blamable—thing, no doubt his conduct will have to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, and the only question is at what time and in what manner. I do not think it possible that it could be dealt with at the same moment as the conduct of the policeman is being inquired into. I think that the interests of justice will be best observed if, when the Commissioners of Police have taken the proceedings which there is no doubt will now be taken with regard to the constable, and when the matter has been properly brought before the Court the conduct of the magistrate is dealt with. During the inquiry into the proceedings of the constable, statements may be made which may seriously implicate the magistrate—I do not say that such statements will be made, but they may—and I conceive that it would be then the duty of the Home Secretary to bring the whole conduct of the magistrate under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, and it would be incumbent upon the Lord Chancellor to deal with the case of Mr. Newton in the same way as that of any other magistrate. That appears to me to be the regular and precise course to follow. By no means let the magistrate escape, because if he is the offender he is the worst offender. If this course be followed substantial justice will be done both to the policeman and the magistrate.

I think the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) have very properly vindicated the character of this unfortunate girl. I do hope, however, that, in their sympathy for this young woman, the House will not forget the enormity of the evil which exists in our midst. It should be borne in mind that some of the streets of London are a positive disgrace. I cannot but feel a good deal of sympathy with the magistrate in his endeavour to purify the thoroughfares of the filth which unquestionably prevails there. His action in this case seems to be regarded as a mistake by many Members; but, at the same time, I hope that their sympathy with the girl will not prevent them from appreciating the very great evil which the Legislature has to contend with in dealing with the whole question.

The Home Secretary frankly admitted that such cases as these are constantly occurring. He speaks with authority, and no doubt what he said was perfectly true; but it seems to me that it is the business of Parliament to make it impossible for those cases to happen. The discussion so far has been on the administration of the law; but nothing short of an alteration of the law can prevent such cases from occurring. If it be the law that a woman's character can be destroyed at any moment by the uncorroborated testimony of a policeman, I say that the law is in a disgraceful condition, and I should like to hear the Government express a willingness to bring about a change in the law which would give greater security to women who pass about the streets. I suppose I am correct in saying that no man is ever arrested for an offence of this kind, and yet everybody knows that men solicit as well as women, and if it were possible for men to be brought into court and fined, or sent to prison, on the evidence of a single constable, this House would very soon alter the law. It is the duty of the Government to make such a change in the law as this case shows to be necessary.

I quite agree with the Attorney General that the proper course to be taken is to have an inquiry; but I should like to point out that the other night the Home Secretary positively refused, in reply to an hon. Gentleman, to institute any inquiry. I heard the Home Secretary distinctly say "No," in reply to the Question whether he would institute an inquiry into this case; and it was not until my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) intervened that another view seemed to come over the Home Secretary. I submit that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to institute an inquiry without the interference of the House at all. The conception which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have of his Office is out of harmony with precedent, and is not the view entertained by the people of this country of the functions of the Home Secretary. There is no Court of Criminal Appeal in England, although there ought to be one. The Home Secretary is responsible for the administration of justice to the House of Commons; and the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Home Office has again and again reversed the decisions of Judges and juries by releasing prisoners who have been improperly convicted. But not only is the Home Secretary responsible as having the supervision over all the London magistrates—he is also responsible for the whole of the Metropolitan Police. Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of the Watch Committees which exist in all our great cities except in London, and does he not know that investigations before Watch Committees into the conduct of the police are of most frequent occurrence, and that the quasi -judicial inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman deprecates so much are thus constantly taking place? In London this duty is cast upon the Home Secretary, and he is bound to discharge it. The Home Secretary said that the young woman in this case had no complaint, inasmuch as she was not convicted. That is true. But the complaint is, that she was unjustly slandered from the Bench. The magistrate heard the evidence of the policeman on oath, and did not believe it. Had he believed it he would have convicted the defendant. But having decided that he did not believe the policeman, he thereupon turned to the girl, and said, practically, "Not guilty; but do not do it again." It was a most regrettable incident, and the magistrate was betrayed into the use of very unfortunate language. An important point which presents itself for consideration in connection with the case is the similarity of interests, so to speak, which spring up between magistrates and the police when magistrates remain for so many years in the same Police Courts. It would greatly promote the administration of justice if every magistrate in London were to move from Court to Court. If there could be a little more circulation of that kind magistrates would not be hearing constantly the same policemen giving evidence. I hope this matter will not be referred to any Directors of Public Prosecutions. What the House of Commons wants is a distinct pledge that there shall be a complete inquiry into the case; and, unless we get that pledge, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is going a little further than he is at all justified in asking for a distinct pledge on matters which are not at the present moment brought in such a manner before the Secretary of State as would justify him in giving a distinct pledge. What the Attorney General has undertaken to do is to secure that, if the statements which have been made in this House can be reduced to writing, and are sufficient to justify the serious inquiry which would have to be undertaken on those allegations, then forthwith the proper officer shall be put in motion, and the inquiry shall take place. The right hon. Gentleman has treated the matter as if it simply concerned the character of the young woman charged. There are very much more important issues in the case. As the Attorney General said just now, it cannot be a question of mistake. Either the statement of the policeman must be wilful and corrupt perjury, or it must have been true. Greatly as we are moved by sympathy with Miss Cass, we must take care that we do justice to all persons concerned; and we must not be led away by a most generous and right feeling into taking steps which may be attended with very serious injustice to other persons. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that the allegations made in this House, which are not evidence, should be reduced to writing, and placed before the proper authorities, who will proceed in the manner in which they will alone be justified in proceeding in a case of this great gravity. If these charges are brought before the knowledge of the Secretary of State, or the Chief Commissioner of Police, we undertake that justice shall be done under the circumstances. We undertake to set the machinery in motion which will secure the judicial tribunals of our country, and secure that justice shall be done. That, I think, disposes of the case of the policeman, and of Miss Cass. Charges were made against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having refused an inquiry. The demand is that he should inquire into the character of Miss Cass. [ Cries of "No!"] That is the impression left in our minds; and I think the Home Secretary was right in saying that, so far as Miss Cass was concerned, he would not be justified in making an inquiry.

He is going to make it now.

No; not into the character of Miss Cass. We are going to submit statements in the nature of evidence to a judicial tribunal, and ascertain whether or not the policeman has committed wilful and corrupt perjury. I agree with the view of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) as to what he said as to the duties of the Home Secretary with respect to police magistrates, and I think an explanation, at least, is required from the magistrate in this case. The question arises when that explanation shall be demanded from him. I think it would be more conducive to the public interest that that explanation should not be demanded till the further investigation to which I have referred has taken place. I hope the Motion before the House will be withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman, I opine, has gained his object, and the House cannot decide whether the constable has committed perjury or not; nor has the time arrived for coming to a decision upon the conduct of the police magistrate. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) has made allegations with regard to the conduct of the police from, as he said, his own knowledge. Now, any citizen who is aware of any misconduct on the part of the police will only be doing his duty, and no less than his duty, in bringing those facts, sustained by any evidence in his power, before the proper authorities.

I will do so.

But it is hardly sufficient to make general allegations of the kind.

I made particular allegations as well as general.

Then will my hon. Friend be so good as to put his statements into writing with regard to individuals, names, times, and circumstances, so as to put it into the power of the Commissioner of Police to make inquiry? What we want is such statements of facts in cases of this kind as will enable the authorities to take steps to maintain the good order, conduct, and discipline of the Force which is necessary to the peace and security of the Metropolis, and undoubtedly may from time to time be betrayed into gross irregularities. Under all the circumstances, I think the hon. Gentleman has obtained every object he desires by bringing the matter before the House, and I hope that the Motion will be withdrawn.

I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but to explain that the inquiry into the conduct of the policeman which I suggested on Friday night, but which the Home Secretary rather curtly declined to grant, was a departmental inquiry. If as the result of such an inquiry a primâ facie case of perjury had been made out against the policeman, the Department, I suppose, would have instituted a prosecution. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has at length agreed to grant the very same inquiry which I pressed upon his attention last week.

It seems to me that there has been some amount of what I may call pedantry in the attitude of the Home Secretary. If the contradiction of the First Lord of the Treasury to my interruption is correct, then the inquiry at once arises, what will be the value of the investigation which the Government are going to make? The Government say—"Under no circumstances whatever will we be induced to make an inquiry into the conduct of Miss Cars, and we have no power to do so." But they say that if the hon. Member for Durham, reduces his allegations to writing, and lays them before the Home Secretary, or before the Commissioners of Police, they will inquire whether there is a primâ facie case for prosecuting the policeman for perjury. I want to know how on earth the Commissioners of Police can inquire as to whether the allegations of the hon. Member for Durham consti a primâ facie case without examining Miss Cass and her friends? Does the First Lord of the Treasury wish the House to understand that in order that a primâ facie case should be made out only the policeman and the friends of the police are to be examined? Of course not. Very well. Then it follows that an inquiry into the conduct of Miss Cass is practically going to be made. If the Home Secretary had only possessed the logical mind I should have attributed to him as characteristic of the leading members of the Bar he would have been able to have saved the time of the House to the extent of at least two hours and a-half.

What I always refused to make, what I to-day refuse to make, and I shall continue to refuse to make to the end of the chapter, is an inquiry of my own in which I shall be called upon to give a decision. That is what I have refused, because I have not the materials with which to do it, nor the jurisdiction, nor the power. What has been said to-day is—"If anybody—the hon. Member for Durham or anybody else—lays before the Director of Public Prosecutions, directly or indirectly, materials inducing him to think a proper case for prosecution is made out, then a Criminal Court shall make that inquiry and decide upon it." I have not changed my position in the least. I always intended to say that I am not competent to conduct an inquiry-ending in a decision and a result. The opportunity will be readily afforded in this and every instance where there is a primâ facie case for some Criminal Court to decide.

As the First Lord of the Treasury has expressed his concurrence in my views as to the course which should be taken by the Home Secretary, I wish to repeat that the statements which have been made already in this House, if reduced to writing, constitute, in my opinion, a primâ facie case. I think the Home Secretary has taken off the edge of the First Lord's promise.

Should the Vote for Mr. Newton's salary be reached before this inquiry is concluded I beg to say I shall oppose it. If we had had a little more of human sympathy and a little less of something else when this subject was first discussed, much valuable time would have been saved.

There has been a tendency throughout the discussion to fasten the blame on the police constable in this matter. It is quite possible that this case may turn out one of mistaken identity, because it is hardly possible to conceive that a man would be so utterly vile as, without any object to serve, to bring a serious charge of the kind wantonly against a young woman. At the hearing before the magistrate the young woman ought to have been allowed to call her witnesses, even if her conduct in the street had been different from what it ought to have been. The magistrate was perfectly wrong in only hearing one side of the case; but, nevertheless, I hope that the inquiry will be prosecuted as one free from any prejudice.

I do not think this debate would have arisen at all but for the cynical levity with which the Home Secretary has treated the matter. Now that the indignation of the country and the intervention of the Liberal Unionists has brought the matter home, I will not say to the conscience, but to the political susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman, he grants us the inquiry which he formerly refused when the facts were just the same. The right hon. Gentleman had better learn that we live in a time when even the commonest person cannot be insulted with impunity by either the Home Secretary or a magistrate. I must offer my congratulations to the Dissentient Liberals that they have at last found a subject to the skirts of which they can definitely hold.

Order, order! That is not a definite matter of urgent public importance.

I have said all I wanted to say, Sir.

I think, Sir, that whether or not the policeman has committed perjury the magistrate has acted very improperly. He discharged the girl because he did not believe the evidence against her, and acknowledged that she was innocent, and yet he told her that if she came to that Court again he would convict her, no matter what the evidence was. In my opinion, the case of the magistrate has nothing whatever to do with that of the policeman, and it should not be left over till the latter has been tried. If the matter were going to be put off until the investigation promised by the Home Secretary has been concluded, there is a likelihood of its being forgotten. I wish to know whether magistrates in the Metropolis are liable, like those in the country, to have their notes sent for by the Home Secretary on any legitimate complaint? I know that I have been obliged to produce my own.

I must say I wished to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment; but after the very unsatisfactory assurances given by the Home Secretary, and the last observations he has addressed to the House, I think it my duty to take the sense of the House with respect to it.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 153; Noes 148: Majority 5.

House adjourned at ten minutes after Seven o'olock.