MOTION. (Hansard, 15 June 1858)

MR. FITZROY
said, he rose to move that the Copy of Record Adjudication of Bankruptcy against Mr. John Townsend, Member for the borough of Greenwich [presented 11th June], be read by the Clerk of the Table.

MR. FITZROY
said, he would now move that Mr. John Townsend, Member for the borough of Greenwich, having been found, declared, and adjudged a bankrupt from the 29th of March, had since been, and still was by law, incapable of sitting and voting in that House.

§ MR. TOWNSEND
said, he considered it his duty to the House, to his constituents, and to himself, to rise upon the present occasion, and to offer, with the permission of the House, a few observations in explanation of the votes he had given upon the last few divisions, and the reasons which had induced him to think he was privileged to retain his seat in the House. Since he had had the honour of seat in that House he had always endeavoured, in every possible shape and way, to conform to its rules and regulations. He had never thrust himself upon the notice or the society of any hon. Member on either side of the House, and if he had erred in the votes he had given and in continuing to sit, it had been in ignorance, and certainly not in defiance, of the rules of the House. It was perfectly true that an adjudication of bankruptcy had been filed against him in consequence of his having been involved in a heavy Chancery suit, over which be had no control, and the political persecution that had been 2100 directed against him, but he had every reason to suppose that in the course of a few days or weeks that bankruptcy would be superseded. He had but one harsh creditor, but for whom the bankruptcy would have been superseded long ago, and he would never rest contented until all his debts had been paid with 20s. in the pound and interest. With great respect and deference to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. FitzRoy), he would submit to the House, from facts which he would endeavour to prove in explanation, that there were at least very divided opinions as to his right, under existing circumstances, to sit and vote in that House, and he believed he should be able to show that he was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that he still had the right to sit and vote as a Member of that House. As, however, there were many leading technicalities bearing on the case, which, as he was not a lawyer, he could not be expected to know, he should rely upon that which he had always heard and believed—namely, that it was as much the pride and pleasure as it was the duty of the strong to protect the humble and the weak. He would, therefore, at once appeal to the law officers of the Crown, and to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House, to assist him in the discussion which he trusted would follow the observations he was now making, by quoting any legal points with which they might be familiar in support of his case. He had endeavoured in every possible way to ascertain the true meaning of the Act which had been referred to, and he was assured by parties who were capable of judging that he had a perfect right to sit in the House and to record his votes. He had instructed a friend learned in the law to give him his opinion upon the point now raised, and his opinion was that he (Mr. Townsend) had an undoubted right to be and to continue a Member of that House. Certain cases were quoted in support of this opinion, and among others the case of Sir R. Price, formerly a Member of the House, who, although he had been adjudicated a bankrupt, yet, the proceedings having been suspended and adjourned time after time, he, prior to the supersedeas being taken out, sat and recorded his votes. He would respectfully submit that if Sir R. Price had the power to sit in that House, he, although a more humble man, had the same power. It was no secret to any one that circulars were continually sent to hon. Members inviting them to attend cer- 2101 tain divisions. These circulars were never marked "Private," or "Confidential," or he should not have alluded to them; but he had received these circulars from hon., right hon., and learned Members, inviting him to come and vote for certain measures which were expected to be brought into debate in that House. No later than yesterday morning he had received a circular from a right hon. and learned Gentleman, quite capable of judging upon the question whether he had a right to vote, inviting him to attend the House last night and record his vote. He could not believe for a single moment that these hon., right hon., and learned Gentlemen" would think of offering an intentional insult to a large and independent constituency by inviting their Member to a division upon which the door would be shut upon him. A man might as well invite another to dinner, and then tell him that he had no business there. When he came down to the House he found the door open, and no bar or opposition offered to Ins entrance. He found his name duly printed on the division desk, and this he took for an invitation to come and have his name ticked off. He took his seat in the House, and not a syllable was said to him. He recorded vote after vote, and his name was printed in the division lists, and published in every newspaper in the United Kingdom. All of a sudden the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Mr. FitzRoy) moved, in his absence, for a record of the adjudication. The right hon. Gentleman gave him no previous notice of his intention Now, he did think that the right hon. Gentleman might have condescended to drop him one line. The first he heard of it was from the right hon. Gentleman's own lips the same night, while he was in the lobby on the division upon the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King). The right hon. Gentleman told him when he was in the division lobby that he had no power to vote; but he (Mr. Townsend) had not forgotten the 180th rule of the House, which says, "Every Member present in the House when the question is put will be required to vote," which was explained by the marginal note as follows, "Every Member then present must vote." He had, therefore, no alternative but to go on and register his vote. He contended with every respect to the House that the Act gave a Member twelve months in which to supersede the bankruptcy. It was never intended by the 52 Geo. III. c. 144, that a harsh creditor should have the power of going to the 2102 Bankruptcy Court and obtaining an adjudication upon a £50 debt, when it might so happen, although he did not pretend that it was so in his case, that the debtor might have £50,000 wherewith to meet the debt. Was it not against reason and common sense that while proceedings were going on a creditor should have the power, upon a disputed debt, to shut the door of the House and deprive a constituency of the services of its Member? To the best of his belief in a few weeks he should be able to supersede the bankruptcy. He was told, however, he must resign to make room for a former Member; but until the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair decided to the contrary, he was supported in his seat by the unanimous voices of 30,000 free, honest, and independent men of Greenwich, who would not suffer him to be put out at the dictation of any moneybag candidate. They did not care a rush whether their Members had £50,000 a year or only £500, provided they did not, as candidates upon the hustings, undertake to do that which as representatives they did not intend to perform. He respectfully contended that when so much reasonable doubt existed, it was his bounden duty to his constituents, from the pledges he made to them upon the hustings in favour of all those great measures of reform which were now happily passing the House, and in which they took such deep and unbounded interest, to put aside his own personal feelings, however painful, and to be present to support those measures. He would not detain the House further, but thanking hon. Members for the attention with which they had heard him, he would now retire in accordance with the rules of the House, confident that his case would be discussed and fairly dealt with by hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he thought that every hon. Member must feel that the subject was a painful one, and only to be approached with great reluctance. Consequently the House owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Lewes for bringing this question before them, because unless some hon. Member, regardless of personal feelings, and above all, party suspicion, brought questions of this kind, the credit and dignity of the House would suffer. It was highly important to the dignity and credit of the House that such cases as this should not be passed over. The hon. Member for Greenwich, it appeared 2103 by the Return, had been adjudicated a bankrupt on the 29th of March last, and the commission bad not since been superseded. The Act of Parliament was as clear as anything could be. It did not harshly require that a Member on being declared a bankrupt should lose his seat immediately, but it gave him a breathing time of twelve months, during which he might get the commission superseded, or pay off his creditors; but it did inflict on a Member so situate the incapacity of sitting and voting during those twelve months, or for so long a portion of them as the adjudication of bankruptcy continued in force. The moment that the proceedings in bankruptcy were superseded, his right to sit and vote returned. When the twelve months had expired, if the adjudication were not removed, the seat became vacant, and the Act gave power to the Speaker at once to issue a new writ for the seat. The only doubt that he had felt on this point arose from the use in the Act of the words "whenever a commission of bankruptcy shall issue." Commissions of bankruptcy had long since been put an end to, and it might perhaps have been going too far to say, that in a matter of this sort, without some express enactment, the provisions of this Act could be applied to a different mode of procedure. But the 5th clause of the Act of 1849 provided that, wherever in an Act of Parliament mention should be made "of any commission of bankruptcy," such Act should, for the future, be construed with reference to proceedings for a petition of adjudication. It had been urged by the hon. Member that an adjudication might be obtained against anybody, even if he had £50,000; but it should be remembered that such an adjudication could not be supported. There seemed, therefore, to be no reason to be alleged against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and be thought the House was bound to adopt it out of regard to its own honour and credit. At the same time, he trusted that the result would be that the hon. Member for Greenwich would return speedily to his place, and that there would be no occasion to put in force the extreme powers of the Act.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he agreed in the construction put upon the Act by the Solicitor General. The course suggested by the right hon. Member for Lewes was the only one open to the House, and he should give it his support. As the House had recently passed a Bill to abolish the property qualification, it behoved them 2104 to be more careful than ever in not passing over cases of this sort.

MR. SERJEANT DEASY
remarked, that he thought the Resolution should strictly follow the words of the Act, which were "sitting and voting."

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he hoped Mr. Speaker would express his opinion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, it was a question on the construction of an Act of Parliament, and one for the consideration of the law officers. At the same time, he might say that he agreed with the interpretation put on it by the hon. and learned Solicitor General.