PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT (BILL).

HC Deb 30 May 1832 vol 13 cc227-8

Mr. Baring moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Privilege of Parliament Bill.

Mr. Lambert

objected to the House proceeding at that period of the night with a measure so important.

Mr. Lennard

gave his hearty support to the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, so far as it went to take away a privilege which it was neither useful nor creditable to the House to retain. But he was disappointed that the Bill did not extend to Peers as well as to Members of the House of Commons. It ought to be made to do so. On all former occasions, when the House of Commons relinquished a privilege, the House of Peers did the same. It was well known that formerly Privilege of Parliament and of Peerage extended to the lands, the goods, and the domestics of Peers and Members of the House of Commons; by degrees these privileges had been restrained at the same time in the case both of Peers and Members. He thought that a similar course should be pursued on the present occasion; for he was sure, that so long as the present law of arrest continued, by which a poor tradesman might be dragged away from his family and imprisoned, no class of persons ought to claim an exemption, or be privileged to defraud his creditors with impunity. He hoped what he was saving would not be construed into any approval of the present law of arrest. He thought the present state of the law in that respect most objectionable, and he hoped that it would be soon changed; but while it was suffered to exist, he thought all persons ought to he equally affected by it. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to give his Bill greater extension, so as to include peers as well as Members of that House.

Mr. Hunt

was astonished to find that the Bill only affected Members of that House, and if it went on he should move a clause to embrace the Members of the House of Peers.

Mr. Baring

thought all objections to the details of the Bill should be reserved till it was in the Committee.

Mr. Ruthven

would not oppose the second reading, but would certainly extend its application if he were able; otherwise the Bill would be partial and oppressive to the Members of that House.

The House divided:—for the second reading 38; Against it 4—Majority 34.

The Bill was then ordered to be committed.