HC Deb 14 February 1832 vol 10 cc327-33
Mr. Baring

rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to restrain the privilege of Members of Parliament, in so far as regards freedom from arrest in the case of judgment debts. The subject was one which required the attentive consideration of the House. In bringing it under their notice, he should not go into any antiquarian research as to the origin of their privileges as to exemption from arrest, but should at once proceed to the question, whether the privileges were not such as in the existing state of society were unfit to be continued. The condition of society had so much altered, that whatever might have been the necessity for them in former times, he thought that necessity had ceased in the present day. All would agree with him, that those privileges which were not calculated to add to the independence and the dignity of that House, or to secure in the fullest manner the attend- ance of its Members, were unnecessary, and they were the less fit to be continued, if, at the same time, they tended to the degradation of that House, and to the production of an unequal state of the law between man and man. When such was the case, the sooner such privileges were got rid of the better. The privileges of exemption were of two descriptions—first, the exemption from arrest, as respected criminal proceedings; and, secondly, the privilege of exemption from arrest for personal debts. Hon. Members were of course aware, that the first privilege did not extend to treason, felony, or breaches of the peace; but only tended to prevent the interference of Government officers, to deter a Member from the exercise of his duty. That privilege had usually been dealt with in the way of resolutions; whereas an arrest for debt had always been considered a direct breach of their privileges, and had been dealt with accordingly. In former times these privileges extended much further than at present. At one period no action could be brought against a Member of Parliament on any account. The law in this respect subsequently became involved in some doubt, and in the reign of James I., a Declaratory Bill was introduced, which allowed persons to bring actions against individuals who had been Members of Parliament, but were not Members for the time being. At a later period the absurdity and injustice of the law relative to the privilege of Parliament, again attracted the attention of the legislature, and in the 12th and 13th of William III. an act was passed which was entitled "an Act to prevent inconveniences that may happen by the privilege of Parliament," and by its provisions, Members of Parliament might be sued in the intervals between the. Sessions and during that time only. As the country advanced in civilization, a further change in the law was found necessary, and the 3rd Geo. II. was passed to enable creditors to sue their debtors, being Members of the House of Commons, not only during recesses, but during the sitting of Parliament, still preserving to them the privilege from personal arrest. The next statute on the subject was the 10th Geo. III., which gave a creditor the power to proceed against a Member of Parliament by distress and the seizure of his goods. Thus it appeared, that Parliament had gradually dealt with this question, as the state of the law had been shown to be imperfect. No person who examined the subject could fail to perceive that this privilege of freedom from arrest had its origin in jealousy of improper attempts on the part of the Grown. In proportion as the law became better administered, and the power of the Crown placed within proper bounds, the privilege of Members had been found inconvenient and prejudicial to the general interests of society. Originally the power of the Crown had been very great, but, as that declined, the House had step by step receded from its peculiar privileges. Another remarkable change in the law respecting privilege was effected by the statute of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, which enacted, that if a Member became a bankrupt, and did not pay his debts within a limited time, he must vacate his seat. The preamble to that Bill was to the following effect:—"Whereas it is highly necessary for the dignity and independence of Parliament, that Members of the House of Commons becoming bankrupts, and being unable to pay their debts, should not retain their seats." It was now necessary for him to state the change which he proposed to effect in the law as it at present stood. The effect of the Bill which he should move for leave to introduce, would be to deprive Members of the privilege of freedom from arrest, in the event of judgment being given against them. He did not mean to touch the right of exemption from confinement in certain criminal proceedings, nor to destroy the privilege of freedom from arrest on mesne process; his intention by the Bill was, to deprive a Member of Parliament of his privileges in the event of actual judgment against him, supposing that within three months (or any other limit, the House might think proper) after judgment, he did not pay the debt. The question was whether, to use the words of the preamble to the Act which he had just referred to, it was not "necessary, for the dignity and independence of Parliament," that Members of the House of Commons should not set their creditors at defiance. Merchants, whose business it was to embark in speculations, might become bankrupts without any impeachment of their honour or character; but the case was far different with persons who contracted debts with their tradesmen without having the means of paying them. Why then, he would ask, should an individual who incurred debts without the means of discharging them be protected, while another who was only unfortunate, lost that protection. It was evident there was much moral turpitude in the one instance, and almost only a want of prudence in the other, and yet the man who was guilty of the offence retained his seat, and the unfortunate man lost his. He could assure the House that the present system was productive of great hardship to creditors, and was attended with much discredit to the House. Facts had come to his knowledge which really almost surpassed belief. He would abstain from mentioning any recent instance of the abuse of the privilege of Members, but would refer to one which occurred in 1820. In that year Richard Christie Burton was a prisoner in the Fleet, for debts to the amount of 7,600l. partly judgment debts. He contrived to get returned for the borough of Beverley, and thereupon claimed his privilege of freedom from arrest. His claim was referred to a Committee, who could not do otherwise than report that he was entitled to his privilege. Mr. Burton, therefore, came into the House; but he believed that he did not enter it a second time, for he left the country. By these means he not only escaped from his creditors himself, but relieved his bail. Under these circumstances, he was justified in saying, that the privilege in question was not only productive of serious practical inconvenience, but operated unjustly towards such of His Majesty's subjects as had not the advantage of the privilege, and was most degrading to the character of Parliament. It was on these grounds he called on the House to interfere. He wished to introduce his Bill and have it printed, when it could be thoroughly examined by the House; and he trusted, therefore, hon. Members would postpone any discussion upon its merits at present, and allow him to have it brought in without opposition. He would, therefore, conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for limiting the privilege of Members of the House of Commons as to exemption from personal arrest—for vacating the seats of insolvent Members in custody, and for preventing the election of persons avowedly insolvent, to serve as Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hunt

rose with much pleasure to second the Motion. It would be heard with satisfaction throughout the country that such a Bill had been brought in; and not the less so because it was proposed by one of the richest men in the kingdom, and seconded by one of the humblest. He assured the House that he had risen to second the motion without the consent or knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, who had never consulted him. He himself recollected a case in addition to that of Mr. Burton's, namely, that of Mf. O'Rourke, who about thirty years ago was confined in the King's Bench Prison for debt. He got himself returned for a borough, but never came to the House. He had his horses ready at the door of the prison, from whence he started for the continent, and from thence he never returned. Thus his creditors were robbed of all he had, and got nothing whatever. He hoped the House would receive this Bill unanimously, and he also hoped that it was but the commencement of abolishing other unjust privileges, enjoyed by Members, such as franking, which was grossly abused and often converted into lucrative purposes by merchants, bankers, and persons connected with large establishments.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

gave his most cordial consent to the Motion. He had the misfortune to know something of the case alluded to by the hon. Member who had brought it forward. Burton was living in the rules of the Bench, in one of the best houses in the Blackfriars-road, and, upon the occasion of his wife's death, his sisters had come to him (Mr. Alderman Waithman) to purchase mourning, for which he had never since been paid. He knew another instance which he believed was even worse than that. It was the case of a man who was heir to a peerage, but, who was indebted several hundred pounds to a poor widow with a large family. This person, on being pressed for payment, said that if he did not in a short time obtain his peerage, he would get himself elected into that House, and set all his creditors at defiance.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, the origin of this privilege was rather as a protection against the Crown than against private individuals. For his own part, he concurred in the principle laid down in the Bill, which only further curtailed privileges that of late years had been considerably diminished. His hon. friend had, he thought, wisely continued the privilege in cases of mesne process, as nothing was more com- mon than to arrest persons upon the mere affidavit of fictitious creditors; and, therefore, he thought it necessary that Members should be protected from such debts. In curtailing the privileges of Members, the House ought to take care that Members should not be put in a worse condition than private individuals.

Mr. Croker

agreed in the justness of the principle laid down by his hon. friend (Mr. Baring), but he felt at the same time that very great difficulties would be experienced in managing the details of the contemplated Bill. While it was desirable that Members of Parliament should have property to an amount that should render them moderately independent, it was also not less desirable that the law should protect their persons from vexatious arrest. A bankrupt or insolvent must necessarily have lost his qualification so that it required no Act to deprive a person so situated of his seat. For himself he would gladly devote every attention to the Bill when it came before the House.

Mr. Lambert

thought great inconvenience would accrue to landed proprietors from the penalties imposed by the Bill, and such Members as had constituents, must find the exercise of their duties no such sinecure as to induce them to give up any of the privileges they possessed. Besides, the state of landed property was now such, that there were many landed proprietors who owed judgment debts, but who, at the same time, possessed estates to ten times the amount in fee-simple property, and such persons at the pleasure of a creditor, or of an enemy, who might purchase up such debts, might be deprived of his seat. In fact, if this Bill passed into a law, not one in twenty country Gentlemen could hold his seat for forty-eight hours. Some years ago many banking houses stopped payment, most of whom with time paid their creditors in full; but, if such persons with all their facilities for raising money failed, how should the unfortunate landholder pay his debts at once, when all his obligations had been doubled in value, and his means of meeting them reduced in the same proportion? He protested against the privileges of Members being curtailed. He begged to ask the hon. Member how long could either Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox have sat in that House under the operation of such a Bill.

Mr. Baring

said, when banking houses failed, the proprietors, if Members of Parliament, lost their seats. Further, he begged to say, that the Bill would not enable any person to make use of a bond judgment, given as a security with a mortgage, in the way supposed by the hon. Gentleman; if it did, the objection would be great. His only desire was, to place Members in the same position as they would be in if they had not a seat, with regard to judgment debts.

Leave given.