said, that he held in his hand a petition connected with the subject of Emigration. The House would bear in recollection, that sometime ago the case of a number of poor people, inhabitants of Renfrewshire, in Scotland, came before that House, when, being referred to the committee on Emigration, it was taken fully into consideration by them. The case excited the greatest attention, as it naturally ought to have done, not only amongst the members of the Emigration committee, but also amongst those of the Relief committee, who managed the distribution of the fund supplied by public subscription for the relief of the distressed manufacturers. This committee made a proposition to the Emigration committee, which, under the circumstances, was acceded to by the latter. It appeared, that such was the degree of distress which was then experienced by the Scotch manufacturers, that the London committee proposed to apply a sum of 25,000l. provided that a further sum of 50,000l. could be obtained from government by the Emigration committee, to enable the suffering body of manufacturers to migrate from this country. The offer was, after consideration, accepted by the latter, and a report was made recommending the grant. The report was laid before government; as it was necessary that the sanction of the chancellor of the Exchequer should be obtained before the grant of a sum could be obtained from parliament. He was now desirous of knowing what was the intention of government with respect to this report.

said, he could assure the hon. gentleman, that the question was one which had occupied many anxious hours of the time of his majesty's ministers; and, if the conclusion to which they had ultimately come was not one which would meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman or his constituents, it was because his majesty's government had preferred that course of conduct, which sound policy, and a due attention to the best interests of the country, recommended. The state of the case was shortly this:—In the progress of the labours of the Emigration committee, there came to their knowledge instances of peculiarly aggravated distress in certain parts of England and Scotland, the urgent nature of which demanded a prompt and separate consideration. The committee, at the same time, received a communication from a committee appointed to manage the funds subscribed by private benevolence for the relief of the distressed manufacturers, in which they proposed to give a sum of money, to be applied to the service of those necessitous persons, on the supposition that the Emigration committee would be able to procure the advance of another and a larger sum for the same purpose. The Emigration committee took this tender into consideration, and the result of their deliberations came before the government. There was no reason why government should not have considered the subject, and why they should not have permitted the application to be made to parliament. But, before any decisive step was taken, reports, he was happy to be able to say, reached government, representing that a gradual, sensible, growing improvement had taken place in the manufacturing districts of the country—that though wages were not high, yet that there was no want of work—and that, as it was represented to him, all willing hands were now in a state of employment. Acting upon these representations, when he saw the gentlemen of the committee this morning, with whom he had an interview preparatory to the present question being put, he thought himself justified in putting this question to them, "If, now that an improvement has taken place, and sensible as you must be of the great impolicy and inconvenience of granting large sums of public money, to redress temporary and local distress, are you, under the circumstances, prepared to enforce your application?" The general and immediate answer was, "Certainly not; for that it was under the pressure of an immediate exigence that they had originally communicated with the government, and that, as the reason for a deviation from the course always pursued by the government had ceased to exist, the committee forbore to urge that it should be acted upon." Government had, therefore, only one principle to follow, and to retract the encouragement which it might have given to the application for a public grant of money. It was impossible to omit that opportunity of doing justice to the merits of the committee, who by their assiduity, their promptitude, their judicious selection of that which was to be refused and that which was to be granted, had kept the country, through a period of peril, in a state of tranquillity; the benefit of which could only be valued by those who remembered what had taken place under the pressure of distress at former periods. If the government was not then prepared to go all the lengths which the petitioners might be disposed to require, it was a happy consolation to know, that the urgency of the distress, which alone would justify the interference called for, was now removed.

was of opinion, that it was of the greatest importance to have the subject of emigration fully considered. He hoped that something permanent might be done for the benefit of the country generally, not only the manufacturing, but the agricultural, districts, particularly Sussex, which was overloaded with a wretched population, living on charity and the poor-rates, in the most miserable condition, and constituting, by their wretchedness, an enormous charge on the cultivators of the land. In the course of the inquiries of the Emigration committee, they had learned that there were cases of distress in Lancashire, Renfrewshire, and Lanarkshire, so urgent, that, in conjunction with the Relief committee, they had recommended them to the attention of his majesty's government, with a view to facilitate the immediate emigration of the suffering individuals. The Relief committee considered the whole matter so important, that they thought they could not better employ their funds than by giving relief, not in the evanescent form of passing charity, but in the shape of permanent provision against future distress, by enabling the sufferers to leave the country. The Emigration committee was disposed, in furtherance of this object, to have advised the expenditure of 50,000l. He was quite aware that such a recommendation would alone be justified by a very extraordinary state of things. The resolution was passed unanimously in the committee; but he had no hesitation in saying, that the reasons stated by the right hon. gentleman were perfectly good, for now withholding the grant.

begged to declare, on the part of the Emigration committee, that the pecuniary relief they proposed to afford to those who were disposed to emigrate, was intended solely for a particular description of persons, the hand-loom weavers, and founded upon the peculiarity and urgency of their particular case. Now, as it appeared that that peculiarity of case and urgency of distress had ceased, the committee adopted the course which had been already explained. The report of the whole proceeding would, he hoped, be soon in a state to be laid on the table of that House; and it would be then seen, that the money of the country had been in no instance idly expended.

wished to take the opportunity of asking a question of the chancellor of the Exchequer. What he was now going to address to the right hon. gentleman had reference to a question which he had asked of him some eight or ten days ago, and upon which, not having been then satisfied, he was most anxious to obtain a full explanation. This question was the more necessary, in consequence of what had recently occurred in another place, where statements made by a noble lord, formerly the colleague of the right hon. gentleman, had made it more incumbent than ever on that right hon. gentleman, for the clearing up of the doubts which beset his mind, and that of the country at large, to give some explanation of the circumstances which led to the dissolution of the late, and the formation of the present, administration. His question went to this—whether the right hon. gentleman was or was not in communication with the leader or leaders of his late opponents in that House, and whether or not overtures had been made by those leader or leaders to join and support his measures, if he should be placed at the head of the government of the country? That, he believed, was the substance of the question; and, in the answer, if he understood it rightly, the right hon. gentleman admitted fully, that he had received such a communication from such leader or leaders, or words to that effect. He believed he was correct in assuming that the right hon. gentleman made such an admission. But, at the same time, he had asked, when it was the right hon. gentleman had received the communication in question; and, as he saw no impropriety in pressing the question, he trusted the right hon. gentleman would give such an answer as would satisfy the country. The right hon. gentleman, he was sure, had too much candour to complain of his pressing this question, and he was not sure that he should not entitle himself to the right hon. gentleman's thanks by the course which he was pursuing. What he asked was—when these overtures were made, if they had been communicated by the right hon. gentleman to his majesty? if they had been communicated, and when, to his former colleagues, or any of them? These queries he put thus distinctly, that there might be no misunderstanding as to terms, and he hoped to receive such an answer as would satisfy his mind, the mind of the House, and lead to a more clear understanding of that transaction, which it was so necessary to the right hon. gentleman's character to have well understood.

said, he had been of opinion for some time, that the hon. baronet was taking a course which was irregular, and exceedingly inconvenient; and in this surmise he was strengthened by the conclusion of the hon. baronet's voluminous question. Too much of the public time had been already wasted upon these desultory and useless discussions; and, therefore, if the right hon. gentleman took his advice, he would not make a single observation in reply to the question.

.—Sir, I would cheerfully comply with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed you, but for the conclusion of the hon. baronet's speech. I must take the liberty of dividing that speech into two parts; that which related to certain queries which were propounded by him on a former day, and that which comprised the series of questions he has now first suggested. If I should be, however, no more fortunate in my endeavours to convey to his mind my answer to those new questions, than I seem to have been in respect of the old ones, I am afraid I shall occupy the time of the House to very little purpose. Now, Sir, in the first place, I did not, on a former occasion, admit to him what he is pleased to state as the substance of my admission. To the question he then put, I distinctly answered "No." And I again repeat, that, if by "communication," he means, in effect, negotiation, I have now the same answer to make, "No." I had no letter whatever from those parties, of the description to which he has alluded. But, a letter written by a certain eminent person to a friend of his, was undoubtedly shewn to me. Whether the shewing of that letter to a third party, the hon. baronet will be inclined to consider as a breach of confidence, I am not prepared to say; but, from it, I did collect the favourable intentions which the writer was disposed to entertain towards me. But the hon. baronet must give me leave to say, that he is exceedingly mistaken indeed, if he supposed, that I have received no other letters of the same tendency. I am afraid, he would be extremely mortified, if he were to see the number of such letters which come to me. I receive them daily, though I do not think that the hon. baronet has any, the least, right in the world to ask me, from whom or to what precise effect; but, unquestionably, I apprehend that I could "Sear his eyes and blast his heart," if I were to show him the whole of this correspondence. As to the new questions put forth by the hon. baronet, on the present occasion, I shall, after referring him to what passed on a former day, adopt the advice of an hon. gentleman opposite. I will not answer him one word. I will not answer him—not because there are not many honourable individuals, who could answer him for me, but because I think it well becomes the dignity of this House to get back, at length, to old parliamentary usage; and not to waste its hours on discussions of this irregular and extraneous character. I think we ought to know who are our opponents; and, if the hon. baronet be not, himself, the one great parliamentary phœnix, I challenge him to bring forward his compeer, and let them boldly avow their opposition.

said, he entirely concurred with the right hon. gentleman as to the propriety of getting back, without delay, to parliamentary usage. He, for one, was of opinion, that questions of this kind, whatever might be the tone and manner in which they were put, were really suggested for the sake of exciting discussions, which could only prove unfair, irregular, and therefore, ought never to be encouraged. This was not the only House in which such questions had been of late propounded, with the ostensible purpose of satisfaction, not only to parliament, but to the country at large. Now, it of course became him to speak of the absent with all becoming respect; but, from what he had not only heard others say in another place, but from what he had heard said of them, he could only express his unfeigned regret, that a prayer, which he had heard yesterday solemnly preferred, had not hitherto been fulfilled. He could only express his sorrow that it had not yet pleased Divine Providence "to endue all the nobility with grace, wisdom, and understanding" [a laugh]. That a portion of the nobility was so endued he had no manner of doubt; but even if he were willing to suppose that nine tenths of them were so gifted, he concealed from himself or from the House, that the remaining portion of that illustrious body was still in a condition to require the prayers of the church. He took this opportunity of declaring, that he should still continue the cordial support which he had hitherto given to his majesty's present government; for, notwithstanding the implied censure of the hon. baronet, he had never yet heard it authentically stated, that it was unconstitutional, to say the least of it, for persons not in any way officially connected with the government, the principles, and the members of which possessed their approbation and confidence, to tender to that government their general support. As a friend to the constitution he should continue to tender, wholly unconnected as he was with office, such aid, and to give to the administration the most cordial, as well as vigorous, support it might be in his power to afford them. In all charity, therefore, he could not help expressing to the hon. baronet his own wish—he believed it to be the wish also of the House—he knew it to be the desire of the country, and he could imagine no reason why it should not be the desire of his majesty's government also, that this his prayer to the hon. baronet should not be acceded to—he could not help expressing his wish, his entreaty, that the hon. baronet, and those with whom he acted, would abandon the irregular, unparliamentary, and, to a certain degree, unfair, ungenerous, and unjustifiable mode of carrying on their warfare with his majesty's government. He implored the hon. baronet, rather to come forward at once with a specific question. Let the hon. baronet name his day, let him give his notice, and no doubt every hon. member would cheerfully stand out of the way for so important a discussion. Let his majesty's government be fairly put upon their trial before the House and the country, on a distinct and regular parliamentary question; and he, for one, on such a question, should be delighted to meet the hon. baronet and his friends.

said, he did not wish to provoke discussion, but he had received no answer to the question, upon the subject of the overtures made to the right hon. gentleman. He wished to know distinctly, whether the right hon. gentleman had made his colleagues acquainted with the overtures, or negotiations, which were made to him by the leader of their political opponents. He would ask that House, whether, as a man of honour, the right hon. gentleman was not bound to communicate that overture to his colleagues the moment he received it?

.—It may be convenient to the hon. baronet to know, what I have before stated, but which I now repeat with the utmost sincerity, that I will not answer a single question relative to the late transactions, unless it be brought forward as a motion. Not a single one—and I appeal to the House and the country, whether I am not justified in this course? But, in saying that nothing shall induce me to answer another question, I must and do protest against the hon. baronet or any other man's taking advantage of my silence, to put answers into my mouth. That he has no right to do [cheers].

The discussion here dropped.

, in rising to move the order of the day, for referring the Larceny Laws' Consolidation Bill to a committee, ventured to commit a small irregularity, in first moving for leave to bring in a bill, which it was of great importance to have before the House in the consideration of the amendments in the criminal laws of the country. The bill to which he alluded was designed for the improvement of the administration of Criminal Justice, and was not one to which he anticipated any opposition. It proceeded upon the assumption, that every form in the administration of justice which had become obsolete, and not necessary, might, and ought to be, removed. In all the alterations, therefore, which this bill proposed to effect, the substance of the existing law was in no instance affected. The alterations in the contemplation of the bill were as follow. At present, before a prisoner was put upon his trial, and had pleaded "Not Guilty," he was asked, "How will you be tried?" Now, every one who knew any thing of the administration of the criminal laws, knew how unnecessary this form was. It seldom served but to puzzle and confuse; and, in many instances, the answer to the question was such as was altogether inconsistent with the gravity of the occasion. It was expected that the prisoner would answer, "By God and my country;" but sometimes the answer was dictated by levity, such as "I had rather not be tried at all;" and, frequently, the answer was either suggested by the gaoler, or, in the event of the prisoner refusing, was made by him altogether. Now, was it, he asked, necessary to retain this form at all? and was it not consistent with common sense, that when the plea of "Not Guilty" had been entered, the trial might be proceeded with? Acting upon this view, the bill enacted, that when the plea of "Not Guilty" had been recorded, the trial might go on. The next part of the law, of which he would propose a repeal, was that which inflicted punishment on prisoners who, through obstinacy, refused to plead. He would propose, in all cases of treason, as well as of felony, that it should be a general rule, that the prisoner should be considered "Not Guilty." It was consistent with justice, mercy, and reason, that he should be considered so, merely for being mute, rather than otherwise; that his trial should take place, and a verdict of acquittal, or of guilt follow, according to the facts proved in evidence. In former times, when prisoners persevered in being mute, the ancient punishment, known by the name of peine forte et dure, was resorted to. Although it was sometimes relaxed in practice, yet in cases of treason, the continuing obstinately mute was equivalent to a conviction, and two such convictions had taken place, and execution followed: one of these was on a charge of murder, and the other one of burglary; the former occurred in 1777, and the latter in 1793. Now, he thought the extreme sentence of the law was too great a punishment to inflict for this offence; and he submitted that, in all cases, it would be more consistent with justice and reason, and more satisfactory to public opinion, if the punishment were to follow, and to be apportioned to, the evidence given at the trial. Although Mr. Justice Blackstone considered it to the honour of our laws that the peine forte et dure was abolished by the statute 12th George 3rd, c. 20; yet, in his opinion, it was necessary to go beyond that statute, which determined, that the standing mute in cases of felony, as well as of treason, amounted to a constructive confession, and to adopt a contrary rule of entertaining evidence and opportunity of defence on all occasions. The next alteration he would propose was that which incurred conviction from the party persisting to challenge beyond the number to which he was entitled. In cases of treason, to challenge beyond the number was enacted to amount to legal conviction, and was attended with all the consequences of the accused party being found guilty. In other cases, the challenges beyond the proper number were declared to be null and void. Now, he would propose as a general rule, that those challenges that were made after the proper number was exhausted, should, in all cases, be declared null and void. He would next propose the correction of a great practical abuse; namely, that of pleading a former attainder in plea of an indictment. Now he would propose, that a previous conviction should, in future, not be a bar to an indictment, unless it were a conviction for the same offence to which the indictment referred. The last change he would propose was, perhaps, the most important one. It was the total abolition of what was called "Benefit of Clergy." This was a most useless and unmeaning form. To every capital offence it was annexed. It was, in fact, a mere mockery, and ought no longer to encumber the Statute-book. There were some offences to which "without benefit of clergy" was annexed, in which case immunities were provided for peers; but, as these cases were only two; namely, sacrilege and horse-stealing, he thought, with respect to these two, it was not necessary to observe any particular exemption, and that the abolition of this form might be general, and extend to all cases. In all crimes of a capital nature, where it was intended that the punishment of death should remain, that punishment was to be declared, without mentioning benefit of clergy. When, in addition to the present, the offences against the person and forgery were comprehended, nearly the whole of our Criminal Law would be consolidated. He meant to introduce a clause to prevent the endless repetition of singular and plural, masculine and feminine, &c. This clause had been drawn up by a gentleman from whom he had received the most invaluable assistance in the whole of his undertaking; he meant sir J. Richardson. He apologised for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House. The bills, last session, had stood for commitment. Under the circumstances which had since taken place, he regretted the delay which had occurred in their progress. He had, however, submitted them to some of the most learned men in the country—men whose talents and experience qualified them to give the best opinions on the subject, and had received from them a number of valuable suggestions.—The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving "for leave to bring in a Bill for improving the Administration of Justice in Criminal Cases."

expressed his concurrence in the emendations of his right hon. friend's bill, and the sentiments by which he had introduced it to the notice of the House. It had occurred to him, however, with reference to the clause about prisoners standing mute, that it might happen, that they did really stand mute from the visitation of God; that they might really be incapable of making a defence, from being seized with phrenzy or idiocy prior to their arraignment. He thought it might be as well if a previous inquiry were instituted to ascertain if the party were insane. He was quite sure that the abolition of benefit of clergy would be an advantage; but he was not quite clear that the privileges of the peers were not more largely trenched upon than his right hon. friend had stated; and whether, in cases of bigamy and manslaughter, they had not privileges which would be touched. In the case of the duchess of Kingston, who was convicted of bigamy, the benefit of clergy was claimed; and when the penalty of burning on the hand was to be substituted as the milder punishment, she claimed the privilege of the peerage, and escaped.

said, he had introduced a clause empowering the court, in a case of standing mute, to have a plea of not guilty entered or not entered, at their discretion.

thought the first suggestion of the President of the Board of Control a good one. If a jury found such a person mute from obstinacy, to enter a plea of guilty, as was the practice at present, was a most harsh proceeding; since the person was punished for obstinacy. It was the old law, that he should undergo the pressure of a heavy stone on his breast, and Mr. Justice Blackstone had very properly considered that alteration of the law, by which so savage a practice was abolished, a comparative improvement in our Criminal laws. Now, if the jury found the prisoner mute by malice, he was put on his trial; but he thought it would be better, in cases where the prisoner was found mute by the visitation of God, to let the law remain as it was, than to give so large a discretion to the court as that proposed by the right hon. gentleman.

said, that the House and the country were under the greatest obligations to the right hon. gentleman for the attention he had bestowed upon this most important subject; a subject which he should be sorry to see in any but such hands. The abolition of the benefit of clergy would be as important an alteration in the law, and as entitled to be applauded by every one, as was the increase of the punishment for a second offence.

concurred in praising the meritorious exertions of the right hon. gentleman. He lamented it as a misfortune, that, owing to his having been on circuit, and to other circumstances, he had been unable to render himself master of the details of the bill. Although the principle of consolidating so many statutes in one act was admirable, yet it was obvious that, if the execution were not good, the whole design must fail. Unless the object in view were accomplished by the most clear, distinct, and intelligible, provisions, instead of saving labour to the judges and the professors of the law, it would very much increase their present toils. He by no means intended to say that such would be the consequence of the present bill. He only wished to guard himself against being considered a party to it, if in its result it should be found not to be so good as was expected.

entirely concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, that, if the execution of the bill were not good, the principle would be useless. He could only say, that there had been some experience of a bill of a similar description, by which eighty or ninety statutes had been consolidated, and which had now been two years in operation; and yet not a single representation had been made to him of any objection to that measure. He had consulted a number of persons concerned in the administration of the law; and he must say, for the honour of the profession, that he had never met with a member of it who was not always ready to give him every possible assistance and advice. He could name, among many others, Mr. Starkie, Mr. Russell, and others, and all the judges.

, while he admitted that the exertions of the right hon. gentleman were most meritorious, observed, that when a proceeding consolidating a hundred and twenty-seven acts of parliament, was proposed, they ought to know the legal authority on which such proceeding was founded. He thought it would have been very desirable if the Attorney-general had had an opportunity of considering the measure from beginning to end. The best plan would have been to have referred the subject to the consideration of a commission of eminent persons thoroughly conversant with the criminal law, and who would have immediately known what were the precise parts of the existing law which it was desirable to retain. When so many statutes were swept away, the probability was, that, in the new measure, provisions might be omitted which it would be most expedient to preserve.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.