§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)asked Mr. Attorney General, If he can state the statute under which Mr. Justice Grantham, at Liverpool Assizes, on 1249 Tuesday, sentenced two men, aged 41 and 34 respectively, to be flogged; and, whether the learned Judge is correctly reported to have stated that he inflicted the punishment "under an old Act of George IV., overlooked by Judges."
§ R. POWELL WILLIAMS .Birmingham, S.)asked, whether recent legislation did not confine the punishment of flogging to certain offences; and, whether the Attorney General would not undertake to bring in a Bill to repeal the old statute referred to?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)The statute under which Mr. Justice Grantham sentenced the men in question was 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28. Upon Notice of the Question I communicated with Mr. Justice Grantham, and have just heard from him that the report that he had stated that the statute had been overlooked by the Judges is not correct. He informs me that from inquiries made from the prison authorities he found that short sentences with the application of the "cat" had been most effectual in clearing the streets and the gaols of men who committed robbery with violence; and that he desired to call attention to the fact that this statute could, in his opinion, be used with advantage in the case of habitual criminals of the class to which these men belonged. As, however, there were several other prisoners charged with similar offences, he had the two men in question recalled, and sentenced them to terms of imprisonment in lieu of the sentences previously inflicted. I am unable to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams) without Notice.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, in these cases there was no charge of robbery with violence.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERremarked that he had not stated there was.