§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, their Lordships were probably aware that by a recent decision Members of the House were liable to be adjudged bankrupt. He wished to ask the noble Earl the 118 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has considered whether any legislation is advisable in respect of any Peers adjudged bankrupt?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the matter had not escaped the attention of the Government. There was, he believed, a feeling on both sides the House that it was inconsistent with their dignity that Peers in the painful position referred to should sit and vote, and that some action should be taken in the matter. The Lord Chancellor had a measure under consideration, and he hoped the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), who, he believed, had paid some attention to the matter, would, be kind enough to communicate with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the subject. He thought it desirable that a measure should be brought in at an early date.
§ LORD WESTBURYasked whether it was proposed to exempt Peers from the operation of the Bankruptcy Act, or whether it was proposed to follow the rule of the House of Commons, and to resolve that during bankruptcy a Peer should not be capable of sitting and voting in the House? In the latter case no legislation would be necessary, as it could be done simply by a Resolution.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was not proposed to alter the law with regard to the liability of a Peer to become bankrupt. The contemplated measure would simply affect his position in the House in the event of his being so adjudged. He believed it was the opinion of those who had considered the subject that a Resolution would not be sufficient. There were, moreover, some extraordinary anomalies in this matter with reference to Members of the House of Commons, and the Government would endeavour to correct these, at the same time that they sought to provide for the case of bankrupt Peers.