§ EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the report of a case in the Salford Borough Police Court, which case was heard on Thursday, May 18? The case was that of a boy who was convicted of having thrown a stone at a railway train. The stationmaster, in his evidence, stated that the company to which the train belonged had received continual complaints that stones were thrown at the trains, that the carriage windows had frequently been broken, and passengers injured in some cases as a result of those acts. Officials, he added, had been specially engaged to apprehend the boys, but had not succeeded in capturing any offender until the present case. The detective superintendent stated that the mischievous practice of throwing stones at railway trains had become very common, and that on the London and North Western and the Lancashire and Yorkshire lines injuries to passengers had resulted. Having heard that evidence, the magistrate inflicted a penalty of half-a-crown, which he thought their Lordships would regard as very inadequate to the offence. If this sentence were to remain unnoticed he feared there would be no protection against a repetition of the offence, which might be attended with serious—perhaps 1342 fatal—consequences. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would not allow the inadequacy of the penalty to pass unnoticed.
§ Moved, for Copy of evidence given before the Court.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sorry he was not able to give a copy of the evidence taken before the magistrate—nor indeed to give his noble Friend any further information than that of which he appeared to be in possession. No doubt the practice of throwing stones at railway trains was attended not only with annoyance, but also with danger. When, however, it was stated that stones were frequently thrown at railway trains it did not follow that the offence had been frequently committed by the boy convicted before the borough magistrate at Salford, and it would have been a hardship to inflict a penalty on that boy for offences committed by others, and out of all proportion to the particulars of his own case. As a rule the magistrates who administered local justice had before them circumstances which influenced them in deciding penalties, but which might not be stated in newspaper reports. Half-a-crown was a small sum, but a fine did not always adequately represent the amount of the punishment, because even such a penalty, in addition to costs, might have been a considerable amount to the parents of the boy. Of course, he could not say that it was; and, now that he knew the point to which his noble Friend wished to direct attention, he would cause inquiries to be made. Should his noble Friend not be satisfied with the result of those inquiries, he might move in the matter again.
§ Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.