§ MR. CHARLES FORSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce a measure for the abolition of the Law of Forfeiture on convictions of Felony, founded on the provisions of the Bill which obtained the assent of this House in the last Session? He remarked, that when the Conservative party was in Office in 1859, two distinguished Members of the Government, the present Lord Chief Baron Kelly and the present Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, gave their assent to a Bill for the abolition of the Law of Forfeiture, and had it not been for the circumstance of a change of Administration, that Bill would probably have been passed. The House would also remember that he had brought this subject under its notice in 1864, when he introduced a Bill, the principle of which was affirmed by the House on the second reading. He then had great pleasure in acceding to the request which was made to him, to leave the further conduct of the measure in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond and the Attorney General. His measure was received with great favour on both sides of the House, and was generally regarded as a very important measure of legal Reform. That Bill went up to the House of Lords, but he regretted to say that circumstances occurred which prevented its passing. The present system was fraught with great injustice, and acted most injuriously on the mining interests of the country at large. A deputation from the traders of South Staffordshire had waited upon the late Government on the subject, and stated that they were unwilling to engage in trade from the fear of exposing themselves to the penalties of conviction for manslaughter in consequence of accidents from causes over which they had no control. 149 So strongly did he feel on this subject, that he was determined, in case he should not receive a favourable reply from the right hon. Gentleman, to re-introduce the Bill he had brought forward in 1864. He hoped, however, that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve him from the necessity of doing so, for a matter so important could be more satisfactorily dealt with by Government than by a private Member.
§ MR. WALPOLEI have referred to the Bills of 1865 and 1866, and have found that, although they both have the same object, they contain very different provisions. The subject is certainly an important one, but the importance of the object sought to be attained depended mainly upon the provisions to be comprehended in the Bill. Nobody can doubt that not a more careful person than my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General could have been engaged in preparing such a measure as this, and therefore I shall not be inclined to doubt any provisions which he may have inserted in the Bill. At the same time, there are provisions in the Bill of last year which I should like to consider with the present Attorney General before introducing another measure this year. The probability is, that after a consultation with my learned Friend, I shall be prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject, having the same object in view as the former Bills, though, perhaps, with not exactly the same provisions.
§ MR. HADFIELDurged the propriety of speedy legislation, as the principle of the Bills presented on the subject had received the general assent of both Houses.
§ Motion agreed to: House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.
§ SUPPLY—Order for Committee read.