The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-06 00:00:00

fouttb'Etition
SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLWIENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly aft,-r Twelve
o'clock.

THIRD READING.

James's Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT.

The report um the Wisbeach, Chatteris, I id Gote, and
Downbam Bridge Turnpike (Continuation of Act, Alte-
ration of Provisions relating to Repair of Waldersey
and South Side Banks, Abandonment as to Turnpike of
Road over same, Construction of new Turnpike Road)
Bill was considered and agreed to.
Sir E. FILMER presented several petitions from
pl ices in West Kent, complaining of agricultural

distress.
Captain FITZROY presented a petition from Lewes
in favour of an extension of the jurisdiction of the
County Courts.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented petitions in favour of the
alteration of the law with respect to medical attendance
in poor-law unions.
Mr. DEEDES presented a petition from the Farmer's
Club of Faversham, praying for protection to agricul-
tere.
BANKRUPT AND INSOLVENT MEMBERS BILL.
Mr. MOFFATT in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said that it was in all essential points the same as
bad been formerly under the discussion of the House.
The chief alteration was that the present Bill placed
bankrupts and insolvents precisely upon the same footing.
Sir W. CLAY gave the Honourable Gentleman full
credit for the motives which had induced him to intro-
duce the Bill, but really he could not withdraw his op-
position to it. This was the fourth time the Bill had
been introduced in an amended form, and it might be as
well that he should just state its object. With regard
to the alteration the Bill proposed to make in the bank-
ruptcy laws, he did not so much object to that, but this
was not the proper time to consider such an alteration.
What he principally objected to was, the power which
the Bill gave to the Insolvent Debtors' Court of directing
a Member to pay his debts within six months, and in
default thereof to grant a certificate which should jus-
tify the Speaker declaring the seat to be void. Now,
such a principle was highly objectionable, as it meddled
with that which the House ought not to touch, while it
placed an unconstitutional control over the consti-
tuencies as to the candidate they should choose. He
should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. There were other positions,
and those very various, of ;which it might be said that
they w' re contrary -to the dignity of the House for any
of its Members to be placed in them, as well as that of
not being able to advance a large sum of money for the
purpose of discharging his pecuniary obligations. He
himself thought that it was not only equally but far more
discreditable to a Member of that House to prostitute
his vote for any
.personal or collateral advantage. A
Member might give his vote with a view to obtaining
office, to get an Indian judgeship—(Hear, hear)—a colo-
nial governorship, or a clerkship in the Treasury for his
cots or a nephew.--(Hear, hear.) Such things might
be the reward of a legitimate and rightly-directed am-
bition—(Hear)—or they might be the return for the cor-
rupt votes given to an unworthy Minister.—(Hear,
hear.) In addition to all this, and beyond all
this,he felt that this Bill was calculated to interfere more
than almost any other possibly could do with the privi-
leges of the House. It was, in fact, subjecting those
privilege!: to the decisions of the courts of law.--(Hear,
hear.) By the law which regulated the Insolvent
Courts a discretion was vested in the court to release
any one from custody at three different periods. The
judge might release him at once, at the end of six
months, or after a twelvemonth from the date of such
person being brought before him. Now, it was very
evident that the power to bring any person before the
Insolvent Court might be very greatly abused.—(Hear,
wear.) Few men, even the most wealthy amongst them,
could on a sudden notice satisfy all the claims against
View. The influence of a large and wealthy com-
pare', or the Government, might at any time be
used for the exclusion of any particular Member.
By the Insolvent Courts Act it was decreed that
no Member should be re-elected after he had
been excluded from the Muse, in the event
of his having applied to that Court, until after six
months from the time of his release. He would be one
of the last to shield any insolvent Member, but he did
not think the want of money was a trait of that crimi-
nality which some persons were so ready to ascribe
to it.—Hear, hear.) He for one at least would not
contribute to grant any further power to wealth. He
thought that Mammon was quite sufficiently worshipped
in this country already—(hear, hear)—and he would
certainly give no further power to the rich man's
pocket.—(Cheers.) This was no novelty. The matter
respecting Mr. Wilkes had been settled long ago. But
there had been a more recent case than that. A Bill
for the same purpose had been introduced in 1832 by
Lord Ashburton, then Mr. Baring, but it was ex-
pressly opposed by both the present Member for London
- (Lord J. Russell) and the late Lord Spencer, then Lord
Althorp, who had each urged strong objections to the
measure. 'rhe Hon. Baronet having read portions of
the speeches of the two Noble Lords from the debate
at the time, proceeded to sly that he was totally and
entirely opposed to :any such investigation into the pri-
vate circuoistancas of a,T,y Memh,er of that House; that
wealth was in no instance a guarantee for moral fitness
or mental ability, and he should therefore move that
the Bill be re ad a second time that day mix months.
Mr. MACKINNON said, the Hon. Member had pre-
tended to find fault with the details of the Bill, whereas
his whole arguments were against the principles of it.
He (Mr. Mackinnon) eould not go into the details of the
BiII b:catve every one aho was acquainted with the
practice of the House knew, that they could be amended
and altered in C enrnittee; and he would only say a few
words upon tho general principles which made it neces-
sary that such a measure should bo introduced into the
House. Now, to have a clear understanding of th e
pr isi'cges of the House, they ought to refer to the Par-
liamentarylistory of this country, and ask for what pur-
pose those privileges h-ad been established—(Hear)—
and if they did so, they would find that
it was very necessary to surround the Members of the
House of Commons with certain privileges, because in
the early period of their constitution they were a very
weak body, when compared either to the territorial in-
terest which then existed, or to the Crown. It they
looked back to the time of the Stuarts they would find
that the inflaence of the Crown, the Court, and the
Barons, was far superior to the influence of that ouse.
The cone( quence was, that the House serrounded itself
in various ways, in former times, with privileges which
it deemed cs-; ntial to its constitution, and for its defence
against the other superior branches of the Legislature.
But now that was nut Ike case, and co tar from their
wanting any smell support, he asserted it without fear of
contradiction, that that House, if anything, had too
much power, es comp-red with the other branches of the
Legislature. They coule rest look to their political his-
tory duriu the test hundred and fifty years without
being thoroughly ca vinced that the powers of the
House had been eredually increasing, while the
influence if the other two branches had been
gradually diminishing, and he was one of those who would
regret very touch if the power of the House was ex-
tended any ut.hr.r. Now what had occurred since the
power of the House had increased ? Precisely in
proportion as it became more powelul it de-
pri Jed itself of certain of its privileges, and
gave way in certain matters to public opinion. On the
12 h April, 1738, it was resolved that it was a breach of
privilege to publish or to give any account of the debates
or the proceedings of the House. What was the conse-
quence? contest arose between the publishers and
the House, and at length the House was obliged
to succumb entirely, and to allow the pro-
ceedings to be published, without any interference
on its part. Again in 1751, nearly a century ago,
Alexander Hurray was for some offence called to the
bar of the House; be was desired to kneel down but re-
fused; whereupon there was a great excitement in the
House, nod he was committed to Newgate, and con-
tinued there during the remainder of the ses-
sion. At the beginning of the session he was again
called before the House, when it came to a resolution
that no individual coming before the House to receive
a reprimand should do otherwise than stand. From
that period up, to the present their privileges had been
gradually given up because they were no longer neces-
sary for the independence of its Members.
Now what dil the Speaker say in those
days? who, by the bye, was as much un-
-Ike the Speaker of the present day, as this
House was unlike that House? He said, if a party did
not kneel down to receive a reprimand, there would be
an end to the honour and dignity of the House. Now,
coming to the point, what earthly objection could there
be to abolish that privilege in which his Hon. Friend
the Member for the Tower Hamlets had spoken in
favour? What earthly benefit could an insolvent Mem-
ber have in remaining a Member of tbat House; had he
not better, if involved in debt, go and attend to his
own affairs than remain to legislate there?—(Hear,
hear)—what use was it for an individual whose
mind was preoccupied and annoyed by the peculiar
situation in which he was placed coming to vote in the
House when he ought to be attending entirely to his
own affairs?—(llear.) He did not think that a single
Member of the House would be affected by the Bid,
but it was necessary to pass it in order to keep up
the respectability of the House. Paley, in his
Moral Philosophy, said, a privilege given to any
individual, unless good to the whole community, was a
positive injury to the community; and could any one
say that the privilege of not allowing insolvent Members
to be arrested was for the benefit of the community?—
could any one say that that privilege was approved of
by the community? It was impossible, he thought, not
to come to the conclusion, from the feeling in the coun-
try, which was growing more pownful every day, that tide
privilege would not he allowed to continue much longer.
lie begged leave to state that ho should give his hearty
support to the motion of his lion. Friend.
Mr. BERNAL would a=lt what had the House to do
with the old doctrine, that Members of the House of
Commons were to bow or to tit in certain cases?
(Hear, hear.) His Honourable Friend (Mr. Mackinnon)
talked of the influence that that House ought to
exercise over general public opinion. Did his
Honourable Friend say, if this Bill was to pass
in all its purity, that it would secure that respect for the
future legislation of the House of Commons? A man.
"night hold an estate charged with debts by no crimi-
nality or profligacy of his 01,13, but by the extravagance
and the jointures of his ancestors, and it might be impos-
eiblafor him Logo into the money-market and raise money
sufficient to pay his debt& Could the House not imagine
she owner o"szteueiwi.:propaly to Inset the charges