COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Moran, which appears in the "Times" of the 24th instant, who having been unable to contribute towards the expense of his children, owing to illness, his wife being in an asylum, was ordered one month's imprisonment with hard labour by the presiding magistrate; and, whether he will take steps to have the case investigated?
MR. COLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Daily News" of the 24th instant, headed "A Painful Scene in Court," relative to the case of a labourer named Thomas Moran, heard at the police court at Chester, by which it appeared that Moran was summoned by the relieving officer for neglecting to contribute to the support of his six children, the facts being that the children were admitted to the workhouse in September, Moran agreeing to pay 10s. weekly for their support, the mother being in an asylum; that he had paid 14s. during the first fortnight, but then 1243 met with, an accident, necessitating his being taken to the infirmary on a stretcher, and was laid up for ten weeks, and after that, owing to the frost, was out of employ for thirteen weeks; notwithstanding which, the magistrates sentenced him to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, in spite of the remonstrances of the man, who begged the magistrates, for God's sake, to give him a chance to pay the arrears as he was then in work, had never been in prison before, and if they sent him to prison he would lose his work; stating also, that if he was given time he would pay all the arrears; and, if these facts are true; and, if so, whether he does not think it is a case for the remission of the sentence?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSIn answering this Question, I may also answer the one which has been put on the Paper by my hon. Friend (Colonel Beresford) at the same time. I wish first to state that I think my hon. Friend rather mistook what I stated to him the other day. I did not wish to find the slightest fault with the telegram which he read, but only to express to the House that I thought an inquiry should be made; that an inquiry had been set on foot; and, therefore, that I thought it would be better that the House should leave things alone, in justice to the magistrates, until that inquiry had been made. I have now no hesitation in saying that if the facts in this case actually were as stated in the Question of the hon. Member opposite, I should have ordered the immediate discharge of the man in custody, because I think the magistrates would have been wrong in convicting him under such circumstances. But the case presented in that Question certainly by no means agrees with the facts which were either proved before the magistrates, or have since come to light. This man has the misfortune to have a wife who is insane, and she has been in the lunatic asylum at the public expense for some time. On the 11th of September his six children were taken into the workhouse, and there they remained. Of course, he had to make certain payments. On the 17th of September he had the misfortune to have a varicose vein burst, which rendered it impossible for him to work, and he had to be brought into the infirmary. Before 1244 the magistrates he expressly stated that he was laid up in the infirmary for ten weeks. Well, he really went in on the 17th of September, and was discharged as cured on the 2nd of October—a very little more than a fortnight, and he went back to his work immediately after his discharge. Therefore, instead of being unable to work for 10 weeks, he was really absent from work a little more than two weeks. The magistrate, however, notwithstanding the man's statement, sent him to prison for one month, with hard labour. Well, then, as was shown before the magistrates by other evidence, he was undoubtedly an able-bodied man, fit to work, and able to obtain work. Ample testimony of this was given before the magistrates, and it has been corroborated in a remarkable degree by the person for whom he worked, who sent to the magistrates a statutory declaration, which I will shortly read. It is as follows:—
Moran has been in my employ for 12 months, and was in employment when he went into the infirmary. On the 17th of September he was taken to the infirmary, where he remained for 15 days. Two days after he came out he commenced to work for me again, and received from me 11s. 3d. wages due to him. From the 8th to the 15th of October he absented himself from work, but received from mo, from the 25th of October till the 18th of April, a period of 24 weeks, £20 10s., and if he had not neglected his work during that period, he would have received as much as his fellow workmen earning the same wages, £1 4s. 9d. per week, a sum altogether of £30.Therefore, upon the statement of his master, he was not only not out of work, but he had regular work supplied to him the moment when he came out of the infirmary till the 18th of April at £1 4s. 9d. per week. He actually received £20 10s. In that case, I am bound to say that it presents a different aspect from that which it were in the public papers. I am bound to say that, as far as the master's statement goes, the Mayor of Chester informs me that he has been to the master's house and verified the master's books. We have the case of a person, who has undoubtedly the misfortune to lose the services of his wife, but he leaves six children in the workhouse at the public expense, whilst he is earning money at the rate I have mentioned during nearly the whole time, and not paying anything towards their maintenance, as he ought to have done. The Board of Guardians seem, 1245 at all events, to have been very patient with him in not bringing him before the magistrates earlier. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the magistrates would have acted more wisely, if, instead of convicting the man in this particular instance, they had adjourned the case the moment they heard the man's statement, in order to make further inquiries. Although it turns out that further inquiry confirms the view that they took, it would have been better for the ends of justice if they had taken this course. I have also to say that other representations have been made to me in favour of further inquiry. I do not think that, on the whole, the ends of justice require that the man should undergo the whole of the imprisonment, and he will be discharged from custody at an earlier period. I should also mention that when before the magistrates he was asked if he had anything to say, and he replied that he had not.