No, Lady Lucas paid. That is the evidence that she was going to give. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Mr. Humphreys goes on to say: Amongst the persons whose minds were affected by this sight was Lady Lucas. She is a perfectly respectable citizen. There is not the slightest allegation that she was under the influence of drink. There is not the slightest allegation that she was doing anything other than what it was her duty to do. She saw, without knowing the cause, a soldier in wartime being treated with indignity. In her righteous indignation she was certainly somewhat unduly indignant. She got excited and perhaps lost her temper for the moment. Now let us hear what Mrs. Morris and Mr. Mayon said. Mrs. Morris would have given this evidence in court had the case been proceeded with: I have had no difficulty with the police at any time or been summoned for any offence. I am only giving this evidence because I considered that the scene I saw was a disgraceful one and there is nothing to suggest that Lady Lucas was causing obstruction. The pavement at the point where we were standing is very wide and there is ample room. There was no scene and no shouting. In fact a passer-by could not have heard what we were talking about. At the time Lady Lucas was arrested there were not more than a dozen people on the spot, and she was engaged in getting their names and addresses in order to send the information to the right hon. Gentleman. He goes on to say: She wanted some of the bystanders to give their names and addresses and to agree with her that it was outrageous action on the part of the police. Instead of asking the nearest policeman to assist her in getting the names and addresses, she lost her head All the evidence of independent witnesses is that there was no shouting and no obstruction. There is a strange admission by Mr. Humphreys: There is this further opportunity for misunderstanding because the police officers when they came across did not know the cause of the crowd and had not seen the incident of the soldier. All they saw was this lady, very excited, trying to appeal to the crowd and preventing the crowd from disappearing, as they would have done when the soldier was taken away It is true that they did not know the cause of the disturbance and the answer is that they did not try to find out. A police constable walked up to Lady Lucas and said, "Who are you and what are you doing?" She said, "My name is Lady Lucas and I am endeavouring to obtain the names of persons who witnessed the incident." He said, "Where is your identity card?" She had not got it. The police would have been entitled to say, You have not your identity card and I must ask you to go to the police station. Instead of that the policeman touched her on the arm. She and her witnesses allege that he undoubtedly pushed her with his hand and said, "Move on" I venture to say, speaking as a magistrate, that it cannot be too widely understood that the police have no more right than the ordinary subject to use force. They can use force only when it is necessary with a crowd that is violent or in the arrest of a prisoner. A police constable has no right to go up to a member of the public and touch him before asking him to move on.

I have not time to tell the House all the story that Mr. Humphreys told, but there is a serious allegation by Lady Lucas that on the way to the station unnecessary violence was used by this constable. There is evidence, which I have not time to read, which would have been given in court by a doctor to the effect that her arms were badly bruised. They could only have been bruised by the action of the constable. When she arrived at the police station she asked for permission to telephone to her husband. She was told that the House of Commons was not on the telephone. It is obvious that the police did not believe her story. I do not want to make an unnecessary charge against them, but they thought she was an unimportant person who would not make any trouble, and they refused to allow her to communicate with anybody. I should like to read a letter from a person who is unknown to me, but he is a well-known doctor in London. He wrote: I was interested to see your action in the House of Commons in Lady Lucas' case. I have been practising for 35 years in the West End, and the trouble is a constant one. Practically in every case I have been involved in the police authorities do impede as far as they dare the speedy contacting of the friends, doctors or solicitors of the detained person. Until this attitude is changed serious inconvenience, anxiety to friends, and, not infrequently, injustice is caused. Surely in all cases of misdeameanour, as distinct from felony, contact with those I have mentioned should be allowed as soon as possible. There should be no delay in allowing the detained person to telephone, of course in front of the police if they wish it. I could give you half-a-dozen instances of most unfair treatment at Metropolitan Police stations in these situations. This letter is signed by Dr. H. Beckett -Overy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if I give him a copy of this letter, will be willing to see the doctor, who is a well-known West End surgeon, in order to hear from him about these incidents. I say that the police constable who arrested this lady behaved with brusqueness and lack of tact. I say that it was a serious matter that she was refused permission to telephone. The question of the injuries which she was alleged to have received should be inquired into; the doctor who examined her should be seen by the right hon. Gentleman or some person in a responsible position at the Home Office, and, if necessary, disciplinary action should be taken. The police withdrew the case, and they were wise to do so. I assert with the utmost emphasis that whatever happened in the magistrate's court, no higher court would have convicted on the evidence. Unfortunately, counsel for the defence agreed to the withdrawal of the case. He realised his mistake owing to the fact that Lady Lucas had had no chance of saying that there was no truth in what had been said, which had led to such headlines in the papers as "Wife of an M.P. very excited." The next day, therefore, he went to the court and asked permission to make a statement, but Mr. Fry properly said, "We cannot hear you now; you should have made your statement before"

I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant in his answer to a Question on the subject on why the case was withdrawn. On 22nd May he said that it was his duty to protect the police. In what respect? The police had withdrawn the case. I say his duty is to do justice as between the police and the public. The police are not in a privileged position. Though certainly, if an unfair attack is made, they should have his protection.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Handsworth Division of Birmingham (Commander Locker-Lampson) asked whether this had anything to do with the injury to the hon. and gallant Member who is the husband of the lady in question, and the right hon. Gentleman made a most curious reply. He said: I am aware of that, and it is possible that that was one of the factors in the mind of the police in regard to the police court proceedings. Rightly or wrongly that may have been one of the factors— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1941, col. 1571, Vol. 371.] I do not think it ought to be one of the factors, the fact that a Member of this House, or anybody else, has been injured in deciding that a case should be withdrawn against his wife. I do not understand that. I am sorry to have to say this, but I think the police realised that they had a very weak case, a case which ought never to have been brought, and they decided to withdraw it, and—and here I think the right hon. Gentleman has been rather misled by the information he got from the police—that they were only too glad to do so, because then they could say they had done a very gracious and kindly thing for this lady's husband, who was injured.