(NO. 65.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 April 1871)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he should not have brought it on at a period of the evening when the attendance of Peers was not usually so numerous as at an earlier hour had he not 1576 ascertained that no opposition would be offered to its principle. The object of the measure needed but brief explanation. It was founded simply on the consideration that whereas by recent legislation Members of their Lordships' House had been made amenable to the laws of bankruptcy, and had been adjudicated bankrupts, it was desirable that that Assembly should not show itself less mindful of its dignity than the House of Commons had shown itself with regard to their branch of the Legislature. In the year 1812 an Act was passed—the 52 Geo. III. c. 144—which recited that it was highly necessary, for the preservation of the dignity and independence of Parliament, that Members of the House of Commons who became bankrupts and did not pay their debts in full should not retain their seats as Members of that House, and it was enacted that whenever a commission of bankruptcy should be awarded against any Member, such Member should for the space of 12 months be and remain utterly incapable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, unless within that time the commission should be superseded, or unless he should have paid his creditors in full; in default of which, after the expiry of the 12 months, the election became void, and the Speaker was authorized to issue a new writ. Notwithstanding, however, the vacation of his seat, he was capable of being re-elected by his constituents, who were thus placed in a position to say whether they regarded him as fit or unfit to be returned to the Legislature. In the case of their Lordships' House, however, he believed it would be the opinion of almost every noble Lord that it would not be consistent with its dignity that one of its Members who had been adjudged bankrupt should continue to retain his right to sit and vote while his debts remained unsatisfied. The respect in which the House of Lords was held in this country was due to a variety of causes, some affecting portions of its Members and some others. There was the effect produced by long hereditary descent from distinguished ancestors, and the transmission of those qualities to those who succeeded them—a title to respect of which he was far from wishing to deny the validity, as, indeed, few could be who recollected that celebrated speech 1577 of Chief Justice Crewe in the De Vere peerage case in the time of James I. Again, the possession of large landed estates by so many of its Members gave to the House of Lords additional dignity and stability. Those remarks applied, however, to only a portion of its Members, for in every generation men were admitted within its walls who had no long line of historic ancestors and no large landed estates, but who owed the honours conferred upon them to services which they had rendered the State. But all the Members of the House of Lords, whatever their position might be, were, he was sure, equally anxious that it should enjoy the respect of the country; and in order to do that it was necessary that a high principle of honour should be maintained; and they could hardly hope to obtain respect due to honourable conduct if they were to look lightly on the circumstance of large debts being contracted without the means of paying them, or if they allowed it to be said that there were persons occupying seats in the highest House of Legislature, and taking part in the making of laws, who were unable to satisfy their ordinary debts and obligations. There might be cases in which the adjudication of bankruptcy might be reversed, and there might be others in which the bankruptcy might arise from injustice or error, or from misfortunes which could not be foreseen or were unavoidable; but one could not distinguish nicely in such matters. He apprehended their Lordships would not do ill to say that it was required by the dignity of that House that some protection should be thrown round the character of its Members, such as the Commons had thought fit in 1812 to throw round the Members of their Assembly. The present measure would simply give effect to these views. It was provided by the Bill that every Peer who becomes bankrupt shall be disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords; or, being a Peer of Scotland or Ireland, shall be disqualified from being elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords. A Peer who had become bankrupt would be restored to all his qualifications when, in the event of his bankruptcy being determined, either by the adjudication being annulled on the ground that such Peer ought never to have been adjudged bankrupt, or on its being proved to the satisfaction of the House of Lords 1578 that such bankrupt has been duly discharged from all debts and liabilities to which he was subject at the date of his bankruptcy. The penalty for a disqualified Peer sitting or voting was that he should be deemed guilty of a breach of privilege, and be dealt with as the House of Lords may direct. No writ of summons was to be issued to any Peer for the time disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, and no Irish or Scotch Peer was capable of being returned a representative Peer under the same circumstances. The same disqualifications were extended to any person who, having been adjudged bankrupt, should succeed to a peerage before his bankruptcy has been determined. The disqualification did not extend beyond the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and therefore no bankrupt Peer would, under this Act, be deprived of any privileges to which he might be entitled in right of his peerage; nor would he be qualified to be elected to sit and vote in the House of Commons, in case he would not have been qualified had this Act not been passed. A question had arisen in his own mind, as well as in that of some others, as to how far the action of the Bill should extend—whether the full payment of the debts should be required or the discharge of the bankrupt should be sufficient to enable him to sit and vote in that House. By the Act of 1812 a Member of the House of Commons was required to make full payment or "satisfaction." Of course "satisfaction" might be made by the creditors agreeing to take less than the full payment. But the difference between the case of a bankrupt Member of that House and a bankrupt Member of the House of Commons was that the latter could be afterwards re-elected by his constituents if they thought fit; but in the case of a Peer, supposing him to satisfy his creditors in the sense which the Act of 1869 required, on his paying 10s. in the pound, or obtaining a release by general consent, if their Lordships were to say that would not be sufficient they would enable three or four creditors who had not been satisfied to say they would accept nothing short of a full payment, and he would or would not act as a Peer according to their arbitrament. He, and some noble and learned Lords whom he had consulted, thought, on the whole, that to leave such a power to a few 1579 creditors would not be desirable. Such were the main provisions of the Bill—as to the details there would be full opportunity for discussing them on Thursday, when the House would go into Committee.