§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been drawn to a conviction, by Sheriff Hamilton, in the Edinburgh Sheriff Summary Court, on 9th March, of five boys, charged with having, without leave, hawked news- 210 papers for sale on the North British Railway Station; whether three of the boys, who had been previously convicted of similar trespass, were sentenced to six stripes with a birch rod, and the remaining two lads to two stripes; and whether these sentences of flogging for such simple trespass were authorized by law?
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) ButeshireI have inquired into this case, and have ascertained that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The offence was the contravention of a byelaw issued under the Act 8 and 9 Vict. c. 33. The proper penalty would have been a fine, but the Act provides that, failing recovery of the fine, imprisonment shall follow. As the boys could not have paid a fine, the presiding Sheriff was anxious to avoid a sentence leading to imprisonment, and therefore ordered whipping. In so doing, however, he overlooked the terms of the Statutes which authorize whipping, for they allow it only as a substitute for a sentence of imprisonment, and not as a substitute for a pecuniary penalty, even although imprisonment may be the consequence of non-payment. I have no doubt that this distinction will be attended to in future.