§ Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that the magistrates at Nailsworth petty sessions had committed the Rev. S. J. Ford to prison for two months because he refused to pay an education rate of 1s. 9d., though he offered to pay the poor rate of £1 14s. 3d.; and whether he would, under the circumstances, take steps to mitigate the severity of the sentence?
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies, is it not a fact that this rev. gentleman has regularly for some years past broken the law in this respect; and that light sentences being quite ineffectual, the magistrates were unanimous in passing the sentence in question; and that two of the magistrates were Liberal Nonconformists?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe facts are as stated in the question. The sentence is stupid and vindictive, but I am advised that I have no power to annul it as the Prerogative of the Crown does not cover cases of civil debt. Mr. Ford must, therefore, suffer this ill-usage, but it is to be hoped that the moral will not be lost on the public.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHIs it not a fact that of the magistrates who passed this "stupid and vindictive" sentence two were Liberal Nonconformists?
§ Mr. ASHLEYOn what ground and by what right does the right hon. Gentleman say the sentence is stupid and vindictive?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI gave the answer to the House of Commons, speaking as the representative of the Home Office and as a Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. PRIMROSECan the right hon. Gentleman induce his colleague, the Lord Chancellor, to dilute the magisterial bench at Nailsworth?
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHWhat steps are the magistrates to take if a person is brought before them regularly for commit- 425 ting an offence and upon whom light sentences have no effect?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI say that a sentence of two months imposed in these circumstances is stupid and vindictive.