HC Deb 30 April 1913 vol 52 cc1188-9
76. Mr. CROOKS

asked the Home Secretary whether, in the recent police prosecution of Mr. Burnett, a working mechanic, for organising a series of whist drives, at the Central Criminal Court, the prisoner put the same plea of defence to the police authorities as he did at the trial; if he was found not guilty; and as the case was a test one, as to the legality of such whist drives, will he, as an act of grace, help this quite poor man to meet the cost of defence, which was nearly £80, as was done in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England?

Mr. McKENNA

I have had this case under my notice, but regret I have not been able to recommend any Grant towards the cost of the defence.

Mr. CROOKS

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if this is not a case for consideration. This man is threatened with bankruptcy and it is pretty hard on him.

Mr. McKENNA

I have no fund out of which I can make a Grant.

Mr. CROOKS

In what was the case of Mr. Bowles different from that of this poor mechanic? Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor?

Mr. McKENNA

There is a distinction to be drawn between the two cases.

Mr. CROOKS

Of course, one has money and the other has none.