in question. The whole scope and intent of the paper should be borne
in mind. I am
opposed to impri-
sonment for fines in principle because I contend it is
against
nst the fundamen.
tal law. That from the measures taken to assess and fix the amount there of
it
without
may be presumed that only such a fine as a man could - going to prison or without parting
pay
with certain necessaries would be in.
flicted. I cited authorities to show that no excessive amount should be imposed and called special attention to the judgments of Lord Chief Baron Gilbert and to Lord Campbells saying
Magna Charta provided that no fine should be imposed
that
cannot pay.
in
-Ca
only
one
that
a man
I further contended that
very many cases a
cases a fine that is pecuniary punishment being the
imposed by the Magistrates illegal by inderect means to
change
it was
161
change it into imprisonment, and having fully set forth
my
views and
the history of the punishment I said "Do not impose excessive fires - do not
fix more than
Lan
carr
pay-
and I I say now that when a fined more than he can
has to
and
for
до
fire. I
wrong
to
the
at-
mau i
pay and
prison it is in my opinion
readaw
given
an excesive.
quite aware I may
de
but I subuit that it was an
-opinion which I had the right.
the
for
vecasion
preely to
A
mament
supposing
express without that I was
-criticising the administration of the
haw or been.
quilty of any
breach
of etiquette nor have I condemned any officers in the discharge of their duties. I had nothing to do with that question. I was treating of another one. My sentence have
souchines been called "crul" ( in ca
pital letters) and once I was compared
to