CO129-266 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [1-3] — Page 164

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