§ Lord Wynfordsaid, that a practice had recently prevailed by the means of which bills of much importance had been pressed on their Lordships' House, with such haste as to prevent a due consideration of them, and even before the bills themselves were printed, such was the case with the measure then before the House. He did, therefore, trust the Committee on the Bill might be postponed until the machinery attached to it was fully understood. It appeared to him that the effect would be to limit the King's prerogative of mercy in certain cases.
§ Lord Tenterdenentertained considerable 1275 doubt whether the provisions of former laws ought to be extended in the manner contemplated by this Bill. He fully agreed, however, with his noble and learned friend, that further time for consideration should be allowed.
The Lord Chancelloragreed with both his noble and learned friends, that the Bill deserved much consideration. He begged, however, to say, it was not introduced by Ministers, but by a worthy Alderman of the City of London. He thought his noble and learned friend who had first objected to it was in error when he asserted that it would abridge the prerogative of the Crown, in respect to its most valuable prerogative, that of mercy, its object being solely to do away with the painful necessity of passing sentence of death, in cases where that extreme penalty was not likely to be carried into execution.
§ Lord Wynfordsaid, his object was, to show that all mercy proceeded from the Throne, and, therefore, he wished the Bill to be postponed, to ascertain whether a clause might not be introduced requiring that, in all cases, the King's assent to the sentence being recorded and not pronounced, should be signified.
§ Committee postponed.