HC Deb 10 April 1888 vol 324 c864
MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of John Douglas and Joseph Wolfardale, who were convicted at Alnwick on December 31, 1886, the men were allowed "one month" in which to pay their fines; and, whether it was the duty of the magistrates at the end of the month to issue a warrant for their arrest and imprisonment in case the fine should not be paid; if so, whether he would state why the men were not imprisoned until 14 months after the date of their conviction?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I am advised that the magistrates had power to allow extended time under the 7th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. I am informed by an experienced Metropolitan magistrate that the same course is continually adopted by magistrates in the interests of defendants.

MR. FENWICK

asked, why the warrant for the arrest of the men was not issued until 14 months after the date of their conviction?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he understood that the magistrates were under the impression that the men could not pay the fine; and they, therefore, extended the period of the payment of the fine from time to time.

MR. FENWICK

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Douglas, one of the men now in prison, stated in Court that he was unable to pay, and that he would be less likely to be able to pay at the end of the month, seeing that a trade dispute was pending, and that he offered at that time to go to prison?

MR. MATTHEWS

No, Sir; I have no information to that effect.

MR. FENWICK

In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I have received to this Question, I beg to give Notice that after Questions are disposed of I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, move the adjournment of the House, in order to put the facts of the case on record.