HC Deb 20 February 1826 vol 14 cc568-70
Mr. Holford

rose, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject in which, as he conceived, some of its privileges were concerned. He had received, some short time ago, a summons to attend as a juror in the court of Exchequer, and for not attending he was fined. This, he conceived, was contrary to the provisions of the late act for the regulation of juries. In the former act, it was understood, that members of parliament were exempted from attending as jurors during the sitting of parliament, and he had thought that the same provision was continued in the late act. He had felt it his duty to mention the circumstance to the House, but he was not prepared to submit any motion on the subject.

Mr. Davenport

said, that he was in the same situation as his hon. friend. He had been summoned, and fined for non-attendance.

Mr. Scarlett

said, that the courts were disposed to excuse members of parliament from attending as jurors, but not as a matter of right.

Mr. Wynn

expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should not be aware of the fact, that members of parliament, as matter of privilege, were exempted from attending as jurors during the sitting of parliament. The duties of a member of parliament were so important, that he thought there could be no doubt that they exempted members from being obliged to attend in any of the courts as jurors. There was a case which the learned gentleman would no doubt recollect, in which lord Hardwicke fined the member for Shoreham for not attending as a juror, parliament not being at that time sitting; but he did not deny the principle, that when parliament was sitting, the member would be exempted from attending.

Mr. Scarlett

repeated his remark, that the excuse would be admitted by the courts of law, but not recognized as a matter of right.

Mr. Ellice

said, that he, too, had unfortunately been fined in the same court for not attending as a juror, though an excuse was offered for him by another juror, that he was prevented from attending by his duties as a member of parliament. The court, however, refused to accept of that excuse, and held that the privilege of a member of parliament did not exempt him from attending as a juror.

Mr. Peel

said, it appeared to him, that there was no doubt that the privilege of parliament did protect a member from liability to attend as a juror, and he thought the decision of lord Hardwicke, just cited, was decisive that it had been so held in the courts. If, however, there now existed any doubts on the subject from the wording of the new act, he thought it should be expressed more clearly; but, as it appeared to him, the thing was already quite clear. If it did not appear in the same light to any of the courts, means should be taken to set the matter at rest.

Mr. Abercromby

had no doubt that the privilege of parliament did exempt members from being called upon as jurors. If, however, any doubts arose in other quarters, they should be removed by a precise exemption.

Mr. Wynn

repeated his opinion, that there could be no doubt that members were exempted from attending as jurors by their privilege; but, to set the matter at rest, he would suggest that the question should be referred to the committee of privileges, in order that it might be ascertained by their report, what were the privileges of members in this respect.

Mr. J. Williams

said, he was present in the court of Exchequer when the fine was ordered to be levied on his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice). The opinion of the Court was not given without a reference to the late act. That act was referred to, and it appeared that the Court did not consider the words sufficient to exempt members on the ground of their privilege. His own opinion was, that it did, and it had always been so held; but the Court was of a contrary opinion; and he would say, only that he did not wish to bring the learned baron of the Exchequer to the bar of the House, that his decision was in contempt of their privileges.

Mr. Peel

said, he had not made any special exemption of members of parliament in the late bill for regulating juries, because he thought the question already established. An exemption of practising physicians had been made; but it was not conceived that there was any necessity for mentioning what it was supposed had been already so well understood. However, it would be proper that the point should be placed beyond further doubt.

It was then ordered, "That the matter of the said Complaint, be referred to the committee of privileges, to examine the same, and report their opinion thereupon to the House." Also, that it be an instruction to the committee to sit tomorrow.