HC Deb 10 August 1905 vol 151 cc948-9
MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a horsekeeper named Vincent, in the employment of Messrs. Ball, omnibus proprietors, of the Brixton Road, was convicted at the Guildhall, on May 16th last, and sentenced to twenty-one days hard labour without the option of a fine for sending out a horse in an unfit state to work; and that the defendant was released from Pentonville Prison the next day; and will he say what was the reason for so releasing him, what is the number of horses belonging to this firm which have been condemned, and the number of police prosecutions against them during the last twelve months.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine's

Vincent was convicted as stated in the Question. On the day after his conviction the magistrate who passed the sentence represented to me that circumstances had come to his knowledge which altered his view of the case, and on his strong recommendation I remitted the remainder of the term of imprisonment. Messrs. Ball, who own about 1,000 omnibus and cab horses, received during the past twelve months 394 police notices not to use horses. Two hundred and four of these horses were subsequently again approved for work. During the same period there were eighteen police prosecutions for cruelty against employees of the firm, though none against the principals. The facts, even if they had been known to me, would not, of course, have affected my action in the individual case brought to my notice by the magistrate who convicted.

MR. LOUGH

inquired what were the circumstances under which the sentence was remitted. It seemed a shocking case.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said the magistrate came, to the conclusion afterwards that the man had no guilty knowledge.

MR. LOUGH

asked whether, in view of the extraordinary figures which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted as to steps taken against this firm, anything could be done to check these practices.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said everything which could be done was being done to check the practices. He was asked in the Question as to a particular case against a particular man who seemed not to have been in fault, as the magistrate at first thought he was.