HC Deb 12 July 1848 vol 100 cc460-3
MR. MOFFATT

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that it involved no new principle; its object was simply to prevent the abuse of one of the few remaining privileges of Members of that House. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that according to the Orders of the House, Members were privileged from arrest for debt. He believed that that privilege had in many cases been abused. He conceived, however, that it could not be abused if the rules and regulations of the House, which required that every Member, not only on taking his seat, but so long as he sat and voted in the House, should possess a quali- fication of 300l. a year, were maintained. This Bill provided that in case judgment was obtained in a court of law against any Member of that House, the creditor might petition the House, stating that the debtor was either unable or unwilling to satisfy his claim. He proposed that such petition should be referred to a Committee of the House, who should decide whether there was any sufficient cause for the non-payment of the debt, and who should determine whether there was ground for disqualifying the Member petitioned against. In order to check any abuse of the power given under this Bill to creditors, he proposed that if it should appear that petitions were presented on insufficient grounds, and with the view of causing annoyance to Members, the petitioners should be required to pay all the expenses of the proceedings. It had been suggested to him that he should have brought forward a measure for the total abolition of the privilege; but he considered that such a step might have the effect of involving the House in continual altercations with the courts of law. It had also been said that the Bill was imperfect, because it did not extend to the Members of the other House of Parliament. He conceived, however, that there was great force in the statement of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), who in 1831, when supporting a measure similar to the present, observed that he had found, in every case where the Commons had conceded a privilege, and where a similar privilege was enjoyed by the other House of Parliament, the same concession had been made by their Lordships. On this ground, therefore, he (Mr. Moffatt) had limited the operation of this Bill to the Members of that House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought it most unfair that a Member against whom a judgment had been obtained—no matter by what means or for what amount, and possibly even without his knowledge—should be disqualified by that fact on the report of a Committee, the House having no option in the matter. He protested against constituting a Committee of that House a court for the trial of cases of debt.

SIR G. GREY

said, that, immediately after this Bill was printed, three months ago, he had carefully perused it, and had submitted it to a gentleman of high position in the legal profession, who considered that there were great objections to the machinery of the measure. He (Sir Gr. Grey) assented to the principle of the Bill, that Members of that House ought not to be protected against the payment of their just debts; but there were most formidable objections to the present measure, which he had communicated to the hon. Member by whom it was introduced, and which led him to recommend the House not to give it their sanction. Considering the extent of the alterations it would be necessary to propose, and the late period of the Session, the hon. Member would do well not to press the Bill.

MR. MOFFATT

had done his duty, and would yield to the wish of the House, and renew the Bill next Session.

Order discharged.

House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock.