I am sorry to have to bring the Home Secretary, a very busy Minister, down to the House in order to raise a matter which I think is of some importance to the subject. May I begin by saying that when a question arises of the action of the police in connection with any particular one of His Majesty's subjects I, like the Home Secretary, am not in the least influenced by whether the person in question bears a title or is Mrs. Brown, of Poplar. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman's democratic declaration was really not necessary, because it applies to all of us in the House. We want to see justice done. The points which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman are largely of an interrogatory nature. It may be that he will be able to satisfy me and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans), who was good enough to ask me to raise this question on his behalf and on my own, and satisfy any other hon. Members who feel somewhat perturbed at the course which events have taken. On the other hand, it may not be so, in which case my hon. Friends and I will hold ourselves free to take further action, as there is a precedent for calling for a Select Committee.

I will endeavour to deal with the matter very rapidly to give the Home Secretary the maximum of time for reply. I think I can best do that by reading certain extracts from the statement made by Mr. Humphreys, the barrister representing the police in the court. He said: There are two charges against Lady Lucas, one of wilfully obstructing the free passage of the footway by causing a crowd to collect and, two, obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty" He stated: On the first charge I will say at once that in my view there is no evidence upon which you could convict Lady Lucas, because it would seem from all the evidence before me that the crowd was collected as a result of an entirely different incident, namely, that a drunken soldier collapsed in the street, and therefore she did not cause the crowd to collect. So that there is no evidence upon that charge He then goes on to say that he had had the advantage of discussing the matter with the defendant's counsel, and he stated that he did not propose to proceed with the charge. He then goes on to say that he will put the facts before the magistrate. I should have said that in asking permission to withdraw the case he used very significent terms. He stated: We probably need not trouble you any further as it is possibly the making of something approaching a mountain out of an original molehill These were the words of Mr. Humphreys, who appeared for the police. He also stated: When the misunderstanding is cleared away it may be that there is really no crime left He went on to say: In the evening of 8th April a soldier lance corporal was arrested in Argyll Street for being drunk. He was so drunk that the police had to take him in custody, and, indeed, it needed two policemen to do it. As you know the Marlborough Road Police Station was closed, and they had to take him a matter of a few hundred yards to another police station. Then having got him to Marlborough Street and Regent Street, in crossing Regent Street his legs gave way and the police had to decide whether it was worth while to arrange for a conveyance. They thought rightly or wrongly that they could get him to the station without conveyance." If I may say so, Mr. Humphreys' statement was a very mild description of what occurred. I have received a letter from a member of the public, which has been sent to me since I called attention to this matter in the House. It reads as follows: I was interested in your question in the House, yesterday, with reference to the arrest of a soldier in Argyll Street some little time ago. Having witnessed part of the incident, I consider the Home Secretary's answer very inadequate. I do not know what trouble the police may have had with their prisoner before I saw them, but in any case it could not have warranted the very brutal treatment he received at their hands. The first I saw of the incident was a soldier, a lance-corporal, I believe, being half dragged and half lifted across the road from the East side to the West side of Regent Street. The man was then in a collapsed and unconscious condition. He was dragged by his arms along the West side of Regent Street, his feet trailing behind. Periodically the constables stopped when the man's body sagged to the pavement, the constables retaining their hold on his arms. On reaching the corner of Conduit Street, one of the constables inserted his hand in the collar band of the man's tunic in front of his windpipe and endeavoured to lift and drag him by this means. This seemed to be so brutal, and also dangerous, that at the risk of being charged with interfering I was about to intervene when a lady, whom I subsequently discovered from police proceedings was Lady Lucas, suggested that she should pay for the cab for the man, and at this point a lance-corporal also offered to pay for the cab. A cab was obtained, but no endeavour was made by the police to lift the unconscious man into it, he was just dragged in over the running board, narrowly missing hitting his head on it In addition to that evidence. there is the evidence of a Mrs. Morris, which would have been given in the court. The lady has not got into trouble with the police, and her evidence would have been exactly the same as the evidence I have just read out. Lady Lucas would have given evidence to the same effect, and so would another lady, and Mr. Lunt. It is only fair to say that Mr. Lunt has himself been charged and convicted with obstruction on two previous occasions. All of them would have drawn attention to the manner in which this man was arrested. My first question is whether any disciplinary action has been taken against this police officer, and whether any inquiry has been held by the right hon. Gentleman about the arrest of this soldier? He gave some answers. He admitted that the police had made a mistake. My hon. Friend asked: May I ask whether it is the case that these officers refused to take a taxicab for this purpose when first requested to do so by a member of the public, who was astounded at the scene, and that they consented to do so only when that member of the public offered to pay for the taxicab? Will my right hon. Friend give instructions that police officers should be authorised to take a taxicab when an ambulance is not available?Mr. MORRISON: I have done so. I agree with the point that my hon. and gallant Friend is raising. There was a hiatus on this short journey. It is true that, as a result of the admirable and generous co-operation of a mem- ber of the public, help was given which solved the problem" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1941; col. 962, Vol. 371.] The member of the public who co operated was the defendant, Lady Lucas. She was the person who paid for the cab. [Interruption.'] If it was someone else who paid—