CO129-375 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [1-2] — Page 365

}

$

to Jmeaning and eran asaso tendo lie nI .(S)

TO JIVO) Owen us and yo bebrows si yni jolt

BROLS.VUTQ \nzoilot and atendɛiş31 a ya

-:dostis vod ilana

190шun 9ãð edito8ong lista conaduce and .(8)

::bedɔiltni au od Benoide to

530 9800W 19onetto as to enso end ni .(o)

end #139, nostris becore Jon asob

besore Jon lisan cedoïde to 719dmun

{evlowj

Old reonetto rendo vis to 9880 end ni .(0)

beeoze Jon linne saxonja to 19UMUN

¡wot yaber)

99tsiltri 90 liens gni gol) tet and .(b) ¿ylstsving,dos9rd and no norid e ́dubY end to sudnomu vie ninjiw níu dosing mi

.eonsjnga

[OP Y.

Your Excellency,

Enclosure 2.

356

I submit e draft Bill which amends the Flogging Ordinance 1903 (Ordinance No. 3 of 1903) and I have amended

section 4 so as to give specific powers as regards offences for

armed robbery and robbery with violence (Ordinance 5 of 1865

section 31) in cases of offenders over 16 years of age.

The Imperial Act 26 and 27 Vict., cap. 44

empowers if the Court to direct the offender to "be once twice

or thrice privately whipped" and provides that "the number of

strokes do not exceed 50 at each such whipping".

The Flogging Ordinance 1903 only permits the

offender to be once whipped and I have thus followed the English Act and placed the maximum number of strokes at 50. The maximum number, I am informed, authorized here for breach of the Prison

Regálatáb=xxixx Regulations is 24 and if 50 is regarded as too severe the number might perhaps be reduced to make the imposition

of the "Cat" in the Prison uniform as to the number of the

strokes inflicted.

I have also included (clause 2 of the Bill) kidnapping cases which are provided for by sections 44 and 45 of Ordinance 2 of 1865 within the Flogging Ordinance 1903 in so far as the ordinary flogging withthe birch is concerned.

in regard to section 3 sub-section 3 and 5

of the last named Ordinance I may observe that the section of the Ordinances there referred to relate to the numbers before Sir John Carrington's revision of the Ordinances and are now erroneous., but the Chief Justice is at the present time engaged in the re- -vision f of the Ordiances and will rectify the error. He has pointed out that under these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to deal with it in the Draft Bill.

(Sd.) W. Rees Davies.

18th. February, 1911.