§ Mr. Rotch,in moving pursuant to his notice for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law of forfeiture as regarded the personal property of convicted felons, remarked, that the subject was well deserving the consideration of the Legislature, and complained that it was manifest, from the returns laid before the House, that the present law opened the door to great abuse. From those returns, it appeared that the whole amount of property of convicted felons in all the counties in England, during the past year (as we understood) was no more than 3,100l., and of this there had been, under very peculiar circumstances, one forfeiture alone of 2,500l.; so that only 600l. was the sum resulting from all the convictions for felony in this country. The object of the Bill which he sought to introduce, was to give power to the Court before which the felon might be convicted to dispose at its discretion of his property in one or more different ways—first, to apply it to the indemnification of the party robbed; secondly, in aid of the expenses of the prosecution; thirdly, to the support of the family of the felon, which, in many instances, became a burthen on the parish; or, lastly, to apply it to the maintenance of the felon himself during the period of his confinement. He was aware, that the Bill would affect the rights of the Crown, and would therefore require the sanction of his Majesty's Government, and he had reason to believe that such sanction would not be refused.
§ The Speakerinquired in what way the permission of the Crown had been obtained?
§ Mr. Rotchreplied, that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had consented to the Motion.
§ The Speakersaid, he must inform the hon. Member that it was necessary the consent of the noble Lord should be expressed by himself in and before the House.
§ Mr. Rotchsaid, he had received a letter from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stating that he had no objection to the introduction of such a bill as he (Mr. Rotch) now proposed, but the noble Lord would not pledge himself further.
§ Mr. Ellicehoped that, in the absence of his noble friend, the hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone his Motion.
§ Mr. Rotchwas proceeding to complain that he had been disappointed during the last Session in carrying forward his proposed measure, when
§ The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order, and remarked, that unless a Minister of the Crown was present to give his consent to the introduction of the Bill, the House could not entertain the subject, nor could he (the Speaker) put the question.
§ The conversation dropped.