HL Deb 18 July 1928 vol 71 cc1112-5

VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they can or propose to take any action in view of the reported torture of a mouse, to secure that in future adequate punishment should be administered in cases of cruelty to animals; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before moving the Motion standing in my name I would like, with your permission, to give you the facts on which my Question is based so far as I have been able to derive them from the information at my disposal in various journals. In the Northampton Daily Echo of Monday, May 21, 1928, I find it stated that a Northampton police constable reported, with reference to William Fulcher, 18, heel maker, of 15, Lady's Lane, that he saw a light flickering in the downstairs window. On a shelf was a candle and in his right hand he was holding a live mouse by its tail with its head in the flame of the candle. The mouse was squealing and wriggling about. Defendant told the bench that he hit the mouse with a carving knife first. He said that it was dead before it was burned and its nerves made it move. But if, contrary to the evidence of the constable, the mouse was already dead, what was the object of holding it over the candle? The result of this case of horrible torture was that the defendant was fined 15s. and the chairman is reported to have said that it was "a ghastly act of cruelty and most repulsive." I could go on to produce other cases, but I think my Notice explains itself and makes clear my feelings on the subject. I am anxious to know if His Majesty's Government can or will do anything in the future to see that such horrible crimes are more adequately dealt with.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, in reply to the Question put by my noble friend Lord Templetown, the facts are as he has stated. I listened to find out whether he had remedies to suggest for dealing with this and other cases of similar nature. In the past many communications have been sent to the Home Office with regard to the punishment of these acts of cruelty being made very much more severe, by birching, by flogging and even by torturing, but it is very doubtful whether the old system of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would really meet the object which the noble Viscount has in view—namely, to prevent the somewhat rare commission of these atrocities. Besides the people who write to the Home Office asking for more severe penalties, there is a very large number of people who object very much to severe penalties being inflicted for a first offence. This particular act was, I believe, a first offence. Accordingly you have two sets of opinion, one appealing for much stronger penalties and the other objecting to any punishment at all for a first offence. I believe that the present scale of punishment for such offences is a fine up to £25 or imprisonment with or without hard labour up to a period of three months. With regard to the corporal punishment suggested, it is very doubtful whether benches of magistrates would inflict this, as they seem averse from inflicting even the severe penalties that they are entitled to impose.

Perhaps my noble friend would like some figures with regard to cases that have been brought of a similar character during the last year for which figures are given. I understand that in 1926, 5,661 persons were proceeded against of whom 3,935 were convicted and 91 were sent to prison without the option of a fine. I have the details of the terms of imprisonment, but I will not read them unless your Lordships wish me to do so. My noble friend has not made any suggestion as to what should be done. Very frequent suggestions have been made, and the most usual of them is that the Home Secretary should send round a circular to the magistrates advising them to inflict much severer penalties in all these cases. This opens up the very serious questions of how far it is advisable or right for the Executive to interfere with the Judiciary. The magistrates hear the evidence in these cases and it is felt that they are in a much better position than any one outside to give the punishment that is adequate to the case.

With regard to more severe penalties being allowed, I may be permitted to read an answer that was given by a late Home Secretary, which follows on various similar answers that have been given by other Home Secretaries on previous occasions. This is what Mr. Bridgeman said when he was Home Secretary:— I have no doubt that in some cases the sentences passed on offenders of this class are more lenient than many of us would think right. The remedy, however, seems to me to lie in the development of a proper interest and a healthy public opinion on the subject; and to that end the various unofficial agencies interested, whose activities I welcome, can, I am sure, do much more than any Department of State. I do not think that I need weary the House with a lot of cases. This matter has come before the Home Office very frequently. I do not see my noble friend Lord Lambourne in his place at the moment, but, as your Lordships know, he has devoted many years of his life to the prevention of cruelty to animals through a proper direction of public opinion to these cases. The Home Office has been guided in these cases by the consideration that society in general tends to lay more and more stress on preventive and reformative treatment of offenders, and less upon treatment that is only punitive and deterrent. Various deputations have been to the Home Office on the subject.

In 1923 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons providing a minimum compulsory penalty in these cases, but this Bill, though it was read a second time, was finally dropped. The difficulty felt was that, if the magistrates, who are the judges in these cases, were unwilling to inflict the penalties that they are able to inflict at the present time, then, supposing that imprisonment or flogging were the minimum penalty, they would be much more likely to acquit, as in days gone by, than in the present state of the law. Lord Lambourne, addressing the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association in 1923, said:— I am not asking at present for any amendment of the law. I believe that the law as it stands is sufficient to give proper punishment to those who are convicted of cruelty to animals. I have explained to your Lordships the attitude of the Home Office at the present time. They rather doubt whether the infliction of such heavy penalties will succeed in the object which my noble friend has in view, and as regards the circular, that would open up the question of the relations between the Executive and the magistracy, which it is thought it would be very unwise to tamper with at the present time.

VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN

My Lords, I should like to make one remark in reply. The noble Lord said that I had made no suggestions. I have been on the magistracy for forty years and I can see the difficulties which he suggests. I did not make any suggestion because I wished to keep the matter perfectly free, in order that we might see whether something could be done in the future. Of course, offenders could have been given three months hard labour, and probably that would have been better than a fine. With permission of your Lordships I will withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.