HC Deb 20 March 1908 vol 186 cc989-91

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

, in moving the Second Reading said that the Bill was a small measure, designed to bring up the practice of all benches of magistrates to the level of the best. Its object was to compel all benches of magistrates to give time for the payment of fines inflicted for breaches of bye-laws. At present the best benches gave time for such payment, but it was by no means universally the case. In answer to a Question put by him to the Home Secretary on February 12th, it was stated that 10,000 persons were imprisoned in England and Wales during 1907 in default of payment of fines for breaches of bye-laws. The object of the Bill was to reduce the number so committed. It said that "a person with a settled place of abode shall not be committed to prison in default of payment of fines, costs and damages in respect of a breach of bye-laws, until a period of seven days or such longer period as the Secretary of State may prescribe, except the Court shall have reasonable cause to believe that the said person will abscond during such period." That clause provided for the case of the vagabond with no settled place of abode, and for cases where the police thought the person would abscond, but it compelled all benches of magistrates in other cases to give a period of time for payment of fees as was already done by nine out of every ten benches in the country. The result of the measure would be that the prison population would be diminished, that fewer people would take a first step in connection with prison life, and that more money would be paid as fines to the public revenue. Looked at from the point of view of the community the result of the Bill must be good. There was no legitimate reason why the measure should be confined to broaches of bye-laws. It was possible in regard to this compulsory giving of time to extend it afterwards to all fines made in lieu of imprisonment. This Bill was, however, at present confined to bye-laws, and there was a second clause which enabled the Secretary of State to give different periods for different bye-laws and different localities. The one argument he wished to urge in favour of the Bill was this. At present the persons who had to go to prison in default of the payment of a fine were only the poorest classes of the community. An ordinary well-to-do person convicted of breach of a bye-law paid his fine easily; it was the case of a poor man who had not the money at hand to pay the fine that would be affected by this Bill. If he were given time to pay he would need a week or a fortnight to get the money together and keep himself from going to prison. He was quite sure that the House if it paid any attention to this subject would see that the question of getting poor people to pay their fines instead of going to prison was one which should receive its unanimous support. He therefore asked the Government to let them have an opportunity of going to a Committee with the Bill and passing it into law this session. He begged to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

thought that the hon. Member who had introduced this Bill in such a precise manner would have done much better had he not made use of one expression to the effect that this was the first stop, and that he expected, if the Bill became law, steps would be taken to carry it forward in other directions. He would have done better if he had said that the Bill was an innocuous one, and had appealed to the House to allow it to go through, because, after all, it was a small measure. But when the hon. Member said that it was the introduction of the thin edge of the wedge which the Radical Party intended to use in order to extend its provisions to all other branches of the law, then he thought he made rather a mistake. Some of them on those benches might have viewed the Bill with leniency on account of its small scope, but if it was simply a stepping-stone the matter was different. [Mr. WEDGWOOD dissented.] It was all very well for the hon. Member to shake his head now. It was easy to say one thing one moment and another the next, but he had taken the words down, and that was what they indicated. Besides that the hon. Member had urged the Bill as a measure to equalise justice all over the country. But it did not do that, because the hon. Member had deliberately said that the Home Secretary might proscribe different rules for different bye-laws in different parts of the country. In other words the hon. Gentleman took power away from the magistrates and put it in the hands of the Homo Secretary, who might put Yorkshire in a different position from any other county. In Ireland the Chief Secretary might, he supposed, provide one condition of things for Cork and another for Waterford, and the result would be that the very inequality which the hon. Member complained of in the exercise of the discretion of the magistrates as to whether the fine should be paid in Court or time given to persons to pay it would be perpetrated.

And it being Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.