§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that in the Weaverham cock-fighting case the magistrates have inflicted the modified penalty of £5 on the persons implicated, they being gentlemen of influence and position, and the fine therefore a nominal punishment; and he would take this opportunity of asking, whether it is true that a boy has recently been imprisoned for two months for ill-treating a cat?
MR. BRUCEI think, Sir, my hon. Friend's manner of putting Questions is very unfair to the Minister questioned and to the magistrates generally when he attempts to cover all magistrates with such blame as may arise from the misconduct or an error of judgment on the part of one. ["No, no!"] Some days ago my hon. Friend put to me, with reference to this case, on the authority of an unverified statement in a Manchester newspaper, a Question imputing gross partiality to the Weaverham Bench of Magistrates. I was then able to show that the imputation was undeserved, and, indeed, utterly unfounded. My hon. Friend now returns to the charge with the same imputation in another form. He asks me whether the magistrates have not inflicted a modified penalty of £5 on the persons implicated, they being gentlemen of influence and position, and the fine therefore a nominal punishment? Now, Sir, in the first place, the line is not a modified, but is a maximum, penalty under the Act. In the next place, although there were persons in the position of gentlemen among the defendants, there were also persons of a much humbler rank in life, and only one gentle- 1325 man was connected with the county (Cheshire) in which the offence was committed. My hon. Friend's complaint against the magistrates appears to be that they did not use the power given them by the 18th section of the Act to commit the offenders to prison without giving them the option of paying a fine. I am not prepared to find fault with the conduct of the magistrates in this respect. It would have been difficult for the magistrates where all parties were equally guilty, and where the only difference lay in their rank and wealth, to distinguish between them, and imprison some of them while they only fined others. It would have been impossible to draw the line. It should also be remembered that no long time has elapsed since these so-called sports, now justly deemed barbarous and disgraceful, were popular amusements, held to be innocent, if not manly. I am glad that the Law has given its sanction to the higher public morality and imposed punishments for such practices as these; but we must not forget that the chief object of punishment is to deter, and that to men of "influence and position" the heaviest part of the punishment is the shame which follows exposure and the conviction for having broken the Law.