The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-22 00:00:00

COMPLAINTS AS TO THE CELLS.

The confinement of the prisoners at Vine-street station
during the night is a painful part of our inquiry. It was
impossible to hear the evidence of the witnesses who un-
derwent this infliction without being surprised and shocked
at the sufferings to which they were subjected.
It appeared that at one time 4:3 persons were shut up in
a basement cell, imperfectly ventilated, and said to have
been disused, except as a place of confinement for refrac-
tory prisoners. The dimensions of this cell were 24 feet
in length by eight feet in breadthi, and the height seven
feet ten inches. The asphalte floor was partially wet with
water, and there was an open convenience in one corner.
The sufferings of 43 inmates, or of the 33 who ultimately
remained there during a sultry night, may be imagined.
One witness passed a second night in this cell with 18
other persons, and declared, when examined, that he had
never been well since. The cell in which Mr. Mair was
confined, and the other cells were also described to us as
distressingly overcrowded and oppressive.
We feel bound to point attention to the defective nature
of the arrangements under which all persons taken into
custody in Hyde-park and Park-street were sent to Vine-
street Police-station, without regard to their numbers,
and without suitable provision being afterwards made for
their accommodation. The measures too tardily adopted
for their relief by Sir Richard Mayne and the inspector in
charge were insufficient. It appears to us highly fit that
steps should be taken to prevent a recurrence of similar
evils. Every cell might easily be inspected, the number it
was adapted to contain certified and fixed, and precautions
taken that the proper limit should never be exceeded.
CHARGES BY OTHER COMPLAINANTS AGAINST THE
POLICE.

In proceeding to consider the charges against policemen
for misconduct, it will be proper to bear in mind the diffi-
culties with which they had to contend in Hyde-park.
They were engaged in efforts to check disorder and tumult
during several hours, exposed to annoyance and insult,
and often obliged to act under circumstances where it was
difficult to discern the exact line of duty. Although sur-
rounded by a vast multitude, they received little or no sup-
port in their exertions to maintain order. It is but just
that a liberal construction should be put on the acts of
men employed in such duties, and that their conduct
should not be censured, except on clear and decisive testi-
mony.
It will be found that the difficulty of identifying police.
men is peculiarly great. The similarity of dress, and the
general similarity of size and deportment, exclude many
distinguishing marks which assist in other cases. The
numbers and divisional letters o which recourse is had
for identification are very apt to be mistaken or sais-
recollected. Two cases occur in which the witnesses
state that they had inverted the numbers of which they
were at first confident, namely, 155 for r,51, and 174 for
147. Several witnesses admit that they had mistaken the
number 80 for 84, and in many cases it was clearly proved
that the witnesses were mistaken as to the numbers. The
divisional letter, too, is another element of mistake, and
we think has been the source of at least one error. These
considerations show that we should be cautious in con-
demning any man on evidence of identity derived solely or
chiefly from the number and the letter. It was stated by
several witnesses that the scroll or border round the num-
ber and letter confused their sight, and was a great impe-
diment in ascertaining the number.
The first class of these cases consists of those in which
the parties aggrieved appeared as witnesses against known
policemen.
W. FLOYD'S AND J. VASSIE'S CASES.

The defence of William Bewlay, 20 D, in this case, as in
the case of Floyd's charge, seems to resolve itself into a
question of identity. On weighing the evidence on each
charge, we think that Floyd's and Vassie's complaints are
both well founded agst 20 D. Floyd swore most distinctly
to the identity of 20 D, after ample opportunity iu Hyde-
park for noticing his person and number. Vassie's oppor-
tunity for remarking the policeman who struck him was
much less favourable, yet he spoke with perfect confidence
to 20 D, and Bewlay's statement that he believes Vassie to
be the same lie struck at tells against himself.