§ MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is lawful to substitute, as is done at the Surrey Sessions, beating with the birch rod for the whipping of adults under the statute 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 10; and, whether the whipping mentioned in that Act was not a public flogging with the lash?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he was asked whether the person who received the punishment described underwent a whipping? Speaking from general impression, he was inclined to answer in the affirmative.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, the Question was, whether the whipping was a public flogging with the lash?