The National Register.
London, England, 1812-02-02 00:00:00

TIIE NATIONAL REGISTER.

TB. 2.

orient, yet the House could not decide on it at present. Many Mem- "
berg, as the Hon. Member was well aware, sat without any qualification
of property ; and at present there was no law which said that a man, by
mere misfortunes in trade becoming a bankrupt, should forfeit his seat.
If his bankruptcy should prove to be attended with fraud, that would
be ground for a motion in the House for his being expelled. A man
might in fact become a bankrupt, and yet pay 20s. in the pound, and
have a surplus exceeding the required qualification. Under these cir-
cumstances, if the House acceded to the motion of the Honouratfle
Member, it would be to appoint a Committee to enquire into the law.
This would be sufficient to induce him to oppose the motion. Whether.
the Honourable Member should think fit to bring in a Bill on the sub-
ject, would 1* another question.
Mr. A. BARING opposed the motion. He thought the time improper
for bringing it forward.
Sir C. PRICE supported the motion.
Sir F. BURDETT thought the law must mean, that Members were to
possess a certain qualification which would render them independent,
or it could mean nothing, and it was absurd; if such persons were to
sit, persons in notoriously bankrupt situations, they had better have
written up over thedoor of the house—" Broken and Bankrupt fortunes
mended here.''—Could it be contended that the meaning of the Act was,
that a person might borrow his qualification for the purpose of taking
his seat, and afterwards return it, and continue to sit without it; if such
were the 'mailing of the law, he could only say, it was fooling with the
Public; and, therefore, though he (Ltd not consider the motion of so
much importance to the independence ot the House, he should support
the motio .
Mr. BRAND thought Members should be obliged to produce their
qualifications whenever they were called upon.
Sir J. N few poor wished the Irish Law to be introduced here; by
which, any Member becoming a bankrupt; and having been Gazetted
six months without paying 20s. in the pound, the Speaker might issue his
writ for the election of another Member.
After a. few words from Mr. LOCKHART, the motion was put, and
negatived without a division.
Sir F. BURDETT said, after having seen that in the opinion 'of the
• House the qualification for a Member of that House was of little impor-
tance, he had little hope of convincing Gentlemen that it was necessary
to inquire into the character and qualification of Police Magistrates.—
In the reign of George 11. it had been provided that Magistrates should
have a qualification ot 1001. a year • that was as much as 5001 would be
now. What, however, he wanted now to know was, whether Mi-
nisters had at all attended to the law, and for that purpose be should
. move, " That the order, obtained by him on a former night, parts
of which had been rescinded, should be restored to its original form."
The Hon. Baronet then adverted to the conduct of the Magistrates, in
having had so many persons taken up, and kept in confinement, on
suspicion of the late murders ; and particularly alluded to the case of
Alblass, who, he said, was
.kept in chains with inquistorial power, in
order to induce hiM to criminate himself. These, and other circum-
stances, induced him to move for an inquiry into the qualifications of
the Police Magistrates.
Mr. RY D ER repeated the arguments which he used on a former night,
and defended the conduct of Mr. Graham, who, he said, instead of
the insinuations thrown out against him, deserved the public thanks.
He wished, instead of general insinuation, the Hon. Baronet would for
once come forward like a man with a distinct accusation.
Mr. TIERNI.Y thought the House had a right to call for the qualifi-
cation of Magistrates. Refusing to accede raised suspicions that the
law had been broken.
Mr. PERCEVAL thought there never was a motion presented to the
House which had less foundation.—There were no grounds for suspect-
ing the law had been broken; and if
.it had, the Magistrates were the
last persons whom the law would call on to make a statement of it, and
thus force them to criminate thenteelves. He 'defended the conduct of
the Police Magistrates, and observed, they had done no more than
their diity in apprehinding those persons to whom suspicion attached.
Mr. WHITBREAD supported the motion.
The A rTORNEY GENERAL opposed the motion.
Sir J. NEWPORT supported the motion. •
Sir F. BURDETT replied; and
The House divided—For the Motion 7—Against it 57—Majority 50.
Adjourned. ,