HC Deb 06 June 1832 vol 13 cc468-75

Mr. Baring moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on this Bill.

Mr. O'Connell

rose for the purpose of moving, as an amendment, that the Bill should be committed that day six months. His first objection to this Bill was, that it was brought in at an improper period. Instead of having been brought forward at a time when, in consequence of the existence of nomination and saleable boroughs, access to that House was rendered easy to those who were desirous of taking such means to defraud their creditors, it was introduced just as the Reform Bill was passed, and when the people of England would at length have the power of electing as their Representatives the men of their choice; and the effect of this Bill, if it should be carried into a law, would be, that they could have no Representatives except men of wealth and fortune. It was, in point of fact, introducing a new qualification. He was further of opinion, that a subject of this kind should be reserved for the consideration of a Reformed Parliament; and it was well known, that the qualification, as it existed at present, was in many instances a mere humbug. His next objection to this measure was, that the protection enjoyed by a Member of Parliament was not for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of his constituents. This Bill proceeded on a contrary principle, and therefore upon a mistaken one. When the Legislature declared, that the Members should have certain privileges, it was not for their own benefit they were conferred, but for the advantage of their constituents. Let them make what qualification they thought proper; but having taken that precaution with regard to a candidate, let them remember, that the candidate once chosen, the privilege belonged not to him, but to his constituents. It was so much the custom to attribute personal motives to men in these times, that he thought it right to say, that there were few men whom it would affect less than him: he believed that he derived a larger revenue from landed property than any of the last four Members for his county. His next objection to this Bill regarded generally the right of arresting the persons of debtors. That was a right which he for one thought should not exist, and which, at all events, should not be extended to any cases, except such as were the result of a judicial sentence. There was an evil, too, to be apprehended from such a measure as this, to which gentlemen of landed property should not be indifferent. There might be many Members in both Houses who might happen to have mortgages on their estates, for the payment of which, or of many more, their properties were amply and more than sufficient; and yet, if this Bill passed, some great rich capitalist or fundholder—some man who had amassed riches, honestly, as it might be, in some cases, but dishonestly, as it was in many, by trafficking in the funds, and jobbing in the stock-market, where a good he would fetch him thousands, and an insurrection might make his fortune—some rich capitalist of that description, by buying up the securities on their estates, might deprive such Members, especially if their political opinions happened to differ from his own, of their legislatorial functions. He believed that the Bill would give rise to a system of purchasing up judgments, mortgages, and encumbrances on the estates of Members of the Legislature, which, though perfectly solvent, they might not be able to satisfy on a short notice, and thus a very unfitting control over their votes would be obtained. He objected to give wealth more power than it had already. In his opinion it had already too much; it did not lead to happiness, and he thought the accumulation of masses of wealth into a few hands was the great evil of this country. These were his (Mr. O'Connell's) objections to this measure, and it was on these grounds that he moved the present Amendment.

Mr. Baring

, after apologising to the House for pressing this Bill forward on the present occasion, said, that the learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell), seemed to consider the measure as being in some degree connected with the Reform Bill. Now, this was not the case; for it would be in the recollection of many Members of the House, that he had mentioned the subject nearly two years ago, certainly before the Reform Bill was even thought of, and that his proposition had been favourably received. Undoubtedly, however, there were circumstances which rendered the change he proposed more necessary under the old system than it would be under the law about to be established, as, under the old law, fraudulent debtors might more easily, by the dint of money, force their way into that House. The privileges of Parliament were extended much more in former times than at present; but the possession of any privileges by Members of Parliament, other than those possessed by the King's subjects at large, was a gross injustice, unless it could be shown, that the possession of such privileges were necessary, in order to enable them to do their duty to their constituents. What he now proposed was, a mere following up of the spirit of the Constitution. If the hon. and learned Member thought any qualification necessary—and he (Mr. Baring) apprehended the learned Gentleman would scarcely, deny it—then surely he could not complain of a change which went to render the qualification real and not nominal and to prevent men from entering that House, in order to defeat the just claims of their creditors. He did not like to enter into particulars, because it might be offensive to the feelings of connexions of men who had been Members of that House, but he could mention many who had evaded the payment of their debts by obtaining a seat in that House with the money of their creditors. He had already alluded to the case of Burton. There was also that of a man named Mills, who had actually defrauded his creditors of 23,000l., through the means of these privileges, which seemed to be thought necessary for the support of the honour and dignity of that House. The learned Gentleman said, that the Bill was arraying the rich against the poor. It was the very reverse; it was a Bill intended to protect the poor against the rich; to prevent the honest tradesman from being defrauded of his just demands, by those who were dishonest enough to plead the privileges of Parliament. The learned Gentleman had alluded to the power which the Bill would give certain rich capitalists, or men supposed to have a great deal of ready money. He (Mr. Baring) did not know whether the learned Member meant to throw out any insinuation against him; but if he did, he could tell him, that he had no claim against the property of any Member of that House. Having thus, as he conceived, replied to all the objections of the learned Gentleman, he would merely observe, that persons well acquainted with the subject had informed him, that a man could not be arrested, at least, very speedily, for a debt contracted in the shape of mortgage. He was quite willing, however, should the fact prove otherwise, to introduce a clause with respect to the securities on landed property, for the purpose of protecting debtors under such circumstances. When he first proposed to bring in the Bill it had been his intention, after a certain period, to allow a Member to be arrested; but persons of legal knowledge and experience having taken objections to the connection of arrest with the Members of that House, he now proposed that a Member should have thirty days' notice of the claim on him; and if in thirty more, it was not satisfied, then his seat would be declared vacant, and the creditor would be left to enforce his claim against him like any other individual With respect to the Law affecting Bankruptcy, passed in the 52d of George 3rd, he believed it had been found extremely absurd and inconvenient. At the present moment, the seat was not filled up for year and ten days, if the bankrupt refused to resign it; so that, for the whole of the time, the place was without a Representative. He proposed, in the present Bill, to amend that law, and to declare the seat vacant at the expiration of sixty day from the issue of the fiat of bankruptcy Having stated thus much, he was quite ready to give any other explanation that might be considered necessary, if the House consented to go into Committee on the Bill.

Mr. John Campbell

assured the hon. member for Thetford, that the member for Kerry was quite right, in his opinion, with respect to the power of arresting for mortgage debts; and he thought it would be necessary, therefore, to introduce a clause to the effect he had mentioned. The other parts of the Bill had his most cordial support, as enforcing the principle of Reform by adding to the respectability of the House, and enabling them to gain back the confidence of the people.

Mr. Bernal

hoped the member for Thetford would introduce the clause with respect to landed property at once. He had intended to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair; but, as the hon. member for Thetford intimated his disposition to introduce the clause respecting mortgages in the Committee, instead of delaying it until the bringing up of the Report, he would refrain from doing so.

Mr. Lambert

, however unpopular it might be, and however well it might sound that every Member of that House ought to pay his debts, must oppose the Motion for going into a Committee on his Bill. In his opinion, if the measure were adopted, it would derogate from the dignity and independence of the House. Any Member of that House, who, having for necessary and indispensable purposes, mortgaged his estate, and entered into a bond, giving a warrant to confess judgment, might, if this Bill were passed, be arrested by any party having the com- mand of money, at a critical moment, for political purposes, or even, for similar purposes by the agents of a foreign power. Such an abandonment of their privileges would prove a check to the freedom of debate, and to independence of sentiment. A respectable merchant, if a Member of Parliament, might, under such circumstances, have a run made upon him which would not be made were he not a Member of Parliament. A Member of Parliament would thus be placed in a worse situation than anybody else.

Mr. Stephenson

approved of the principle of the Bill; but wished that the hon. member for Thetford would delay proceeding with it, in order that he might avail himself of the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the present discussion.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

thought, that the great evil which the Bill had been introduced to remedy had arisen from the total abuse of the law respecting the qualification of Members. The principle of that law was, that no man should sit in that House, to levy contributions on his countrymen, who had not himself the means of contributing. It was undoubtedly intended by that law to insure, that persons sitting in that House should not only be solvent, but should be possessed of some property. With respect to the present measure, he was favourable to the principle of it; but it was evident that the details required more consideration than could that evening be given to them.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

had hardly ever known a measure introduced into that House respecting which he felt so much doubt and difficulty. That no Member of that House should be subject to arrest was one of the most ancient privileges which the House possessed, and ought not to be hastily abandoned. With respect to the law of qualification, to which the hon. member for Kirkcudbright had just alluded, it was well known that that law required the Representative of a borough to have landed property of the value of 300l. a-year, and the Representative of a county to have landed property of the value of 600l. a-year; but the actual practice was also well known. Did Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Fox, or Mr. Sheridan possess such a qualification? And would it have been desirable that, on that account, such men should be excluded from that House? Would it have been desirable that men, to whom, forty years ago, the country looked up as their political teachers, should have been thus deprived of their parliamentary character? Reflecting on these things, he must really pause before he could determine to give his assent to the proposed measure. It was not hard upon any person who gave credit to a man, already a Member of Parliament, that he should be prevented from arresting that man, as he knew beforehand of the privilege by which a Member of Parliament was protected; but it undoubtedly was hard that a Member of Parliament should be free from arrest for debts contracted before he became a Member, and when the creditor, therefore, could have no warning. If the House went into a Committee on the Bill, he hoped it would only be pro forma, in order that it might be re-committed on some future day; for, although there was much in the measure very desirable, there was also much which required deliberate consideration.

Lord Althorp

was undoubtedly of opinion, that it was most desirable that insolvent persons should not be elected to sit, and should not sit in that House. But the hon. member for Thetford must feel, that there were many difficulties in the way of adopting the measure under consideration in its present shape. It was evident that the effect of the Bill, as it now stood, would be, to place a man who was a Member of Parliament in a worse situation than a man who was not a Member of Parliament. For the Bill, as it stood, might be applied to a person being a Member of Parliament, who was nevertheless perfectly solvent; and, notice being given to him, under the provisions of the Bill, he might be expelled from that House, if he had not the means of immediately satisfying the demand upon him. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Kirkcudbright respecting the law of qualification, in his (Lord Althorp's) opinion, that law stood on a very good footing at present. If a Member was not the actual and bona fide possessor of a qualification, he must at least have sufficient character to be intrusted with one. It appeared to him that there were so many difficulties in the way of adopting the measure in its present shape, that he hoped the hon. member for Thetford would be prevailed upon to reconsider it. In discussing the question, they ought not merely to look to the preservation or the abandonment of the privileges of Members as a matter of a personal natures; they ought to consider how far the interests of their constituents might be damaged by a diminution of those privileges.

Mr. Godson

said, that the principle of the Bill was good, but the proposed mode of carrying that principle into effect decidedly bad. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of postponing his Motion, and in the mean time, perhaps, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and to report upon the best mode of carrying the object desired into effect.

Mr. Baring

would be very glad to leave the whole question in the hands of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), if he, in conjunction with the law officers of the Crown, would undertake to carry it into effect. Upon the present occasion, however, he should decidedly wish to go into the Committee pro forma, for the purpose of filling up the blanks. He should then move for its re-committal on that day week, when he should bring up the clause which he had mentioned in the early part of the Debate, and when any hon. Gentleman might move any amendment that he thought would contribute to the safety and efficiency of the measure.

Mr. Wrangham

was opposed to the principle of the Bill, because it would destroy the independence, and consequently, the political utility of Members.

The Solicitor General

must also, he said, join with other Gentlemen in calling upon the House to pause before they agreed to such a measure.

The House divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 29; Noes 72—Majority 43.

List of the AYES.
Blackney, W. Johnstone, A.
Carter, J. Knox, Hon. J.
Chapman, M. L. Lefevre, Shaw
Chichester, — Loch, J.
Coote, Sir C. Mackenzie, S.
Evans, — Macnamara, W. N.
Gillon, W. D. Morrison, J.
Godson, R. Phillips, C. M.
Grattan, J. Ryder, Hon. G.
Haliburton, Hn. D. G. Schonswar, G.
Hodges, T. L. Strickland, G.
Hume, J. Wallace, T.
Jeffrey, Rt. Hn. F. Wellesley, W. T. L.
Williams, Sir J. TELLERS.
Wood, Alderman Lambert, H.
Wrangham, D. C. O'Connell, D.

The House in Committee—Title of the Bill read pro forma, and House resumed—Committee to sit again.