§ MR. RODWELLsaid, that had he known all the facts of the case when he 1138 was asked to put on the Paper the Question which stood in his name, he should have hesitated to do so; but, as the Notice had been given, he thought it due to the justices who passed this startling sentence to ask the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department—namely, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Hare, who was fined £2 for furious driving; £2 for being drunk and disorderly; £2 for using abusive language; £5 for assaulting Inspector Ward; £5 for assaulting Police-constable Clerk; making a total sum of £16 and costs; by the justices at Spalding on the 20th of June last, for the above offences committed on the 7th of June; and, whether, in the absence of any special facts to justify such an accumulation of penalties for one transaction, he will order a remission of the fines, or some portion of them?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he did not in the least wonder at his hon. and learned Friend being rather startled by the sentence primâ facie. It was a singular instance of what was called cumulative penalties. At the same time, as the Question had been asked, the facts ought to be known. It appeared that about 8 o'clock on the evening of the 7th of June the inspector of police at Spalding, being in one of the principal streets, observed a man riding very furiously and seriously endangering the safety of the bystanders. The inspector followed him to an inn, and found him there extremely drunk. He told him that he should summon him for furious driving, whereupon he became very insulting, and used most disgusting language. Then he went into the market-place, where he used the same sort of language. A second policeman came up and tried to pacify him. He continued to be abusive, and eventually two policemen, after giving him repeated opportunities to go away, took him into custody for being disorderly. His conduct then became so violent that it required the aid of two other men to get him to the police station. Hare, who had been twice before convicted of a similar offence, paid the fines imposed by the magistrates and was released. He was sorry to say, however, that a very short time afterwards the man committed the same offence again. Probably, the magistrates considered whe- 1139 ther they ought not to send him to gaol, but they adopted a more lenient course, and imposed the cumulative fines, which, he believed, Hare was perfectly able to pay.