§ Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Bickley and William Parks, who were convicted of night poaching and in being in possession of 12 rabbits, at the Bingham Petty Sessions, on the 25th inst.; that the sentence passed on them was six months' hard labour, at the expiration of which they were bound over in £20 self and a surety of £20 for two years; that if they cannot secure a bondsman for £20 for their good behaviour for two years they will have to serve a further term of 12 months, making, in all, 18 months; and whether he can see his way clear to reduce the sentence?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone)I have made inquiry into this case, but I 902 regret that, in view of the characters and antecedents of the prisoners, I feel precluded from recommending any reduction of the sentence.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONAm I to understand that these two prisoners received these sentences for the crime they committed, and with which they were charged, or for previous crimes?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEI cannot speak of the reasons which influenced the court which gave the sentences, but I may mention that 32 previous convictions, extending over 30 years, for stealing, shop breaking, causing wilful damage, trespassing in pursuit of game, night poaching, and other offences, were proved against one man, and against the other man, Bickley, 26 convictions, extending over 44 years, were proved, including four terms of penal servitude for grave crimes.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONI would ask whether in view of the fact that these two men will be imprisoned for eighteen months, presuming that they cannot get anyone to go bail, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to allow them out on their own recognisances?
§ Mr. GLADSTONENo; I see no reason at all to interfere in this matter.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDMay we take it for granted that most of these convictions are for similar offences as that of the crime of poaching, which in the eyes of good sportsmen is no crime at all?
§ Mr. GLADSTONENo; the poaching was only a variation of crime.
§ Mr. W. THORNEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman who the rabbits belonged to?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThey certainly did not belong to the men who took them.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI am not quite sure about that.
§ Mr. LUPTONMay I ask whether it would not be advantageous to have a clear distinction between sentences for the lighter offences and the heavier offencs?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter of argument.