§ SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in consequence of 451 two men having on the 30th of January been convicted at Middleton Cheney Petty Sessions, County of Northampton, of being "drunk and riotous in a public thoroughfare," and who were fined thirty shillings and costs under the Refreshment Houses Act 23 Vict. c. 27, s, 40, and, being unable to pay, were sentenced to three months imprisonment under Jervis's Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 22, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider the case of those prisoners, and any others under similar circumstances; and if, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c 43, s. 22, may be interpreted so as to enable magistrates to imprison a man for three months for not paying the pecuniary penalty, when the law only gives power to imprison for the offence itself for which the fine is imposed "for not more than seven days?" He wished to say a few words in explanation. ["Order, order!"] His reason was because two men were now suffering imprisonment. He would conclude with a Motion if necessary. Two men were now undergoing a sentence of three months in gaol in consequence of having been convicted before two magistrates for an offence for which they were fined a certain sum, and when for the offence itself the men could not by possibility legally receive more than seven days' imprisonment. The case had arisen under the Refreshment Houses Act. The men were drunk and riotous in a public thoroughfare, and it was in the power of the magistrates under the Act either to fine them forty shillings or to sentence them to imprisonment for not more than seven days. The two men having been convicted, the magistrates resorted to another Act of Parliament, and, after inflicting a fine which the men could not pay, sent them to gaol for three months under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, not for the offence for which the fine was imposed, but for its non-payment. It was true that under the Metropolitan Act parties could be committed for such offences within the metropolitan district for one month if the fine were not paid, and strange as it might appear, though under Bass's Street Music Act a man could not he imprisoned for more than three days—for non-payment of fine instead thereof parties had been committed for a month. The clauses of the Refreshment Act and the Metropolitan Act were identically the same, but the Legislature at least never intended to imprison a man in the country for three months for 452 not paying a fine for an offence which would not render him liable to imprisonment in the metropolis for more than one month. He should conclude by moving the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ MR. SPEAKERThis is the time for the Questions. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman should have been made at the time of the Notices of Motion.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had to thank his hon. Friend for having brought the circumstances of the case under his notice on Friday last. He had transmitted his hon. Friend's statement to the magistrates in order to ascertain whether the facts were reported correctly, and also to receive their explanation. He had not as yet received their report, but he expected that he should receive it on Tuesday or Wednesday. With respect to the general law, his hon. Friend had stated it correctly. In default of the penalty being paid, and there being no means of levying it by distress, the defendants might be imprisoned for a period of three months unless the penalty was sooner paid. That was the case generally, unless where it was qualified by an express provision. In the Metropolitan Police Act there was such a qualification, and the term of imprisonment in default was one month instead of three. This state of the law required revision, and he felt obliged to his hon. Friend for having called his attention to the case.