rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of Ireland for facilitating the recovery of small debts to the law passed in England for that purpose in 1846—namely, the 9th and 10th Vic, cap. 95; and which enacted, that persons bringing actions in the superior courts to recover sums below 20l. did so at their own peril as regards costs. The law of 1846 had given very general satisfaction to the people of England; and as it was the boast of the English Members of that House who professed themselves friendly to Ireland, that they were ready to assimilate the laws of the two countries, as far as was practicable, with any varying circumstances, he trusted that the House would now consent to extend the benefits of this Act to Ireland as well as England. If that enactment were good for England, it ought, he conceived, to be extended to Ireland. He had embodied in the Bill the clause of the County Courts Act, to which he had referred; and though professional men might be opposed to the measure, because it would reduce the expenditure of money in the profession, the great mass of the community in Ireland were most anxious to see this law carried into effect. The next provision of the Bill would enable the assistant barristers in Ireland to give the costs of witnesses in their courts. When the Act was passed for the abolition of imprisonment for small debts, the assistant barristers for the purposes of that Act could give the costs of witnesses to the amount of 5l.; and the Bill before the House went no further than to extend that provision of the Act of Parliament generally, and to give a general power to assistant barristers, with respect to the costs of summoning witnesses. In some portions of the county of Cork, a man might be processed for a debt of 40s. to a court sitting fifty miles from his place of residence. He must either pay or travel fifty miles, and bring his witnesses with him. He might be detained with his witnesses in that distant town for a whole week, and still the assistant barrister had not power to award costs in that case. He held in his hand a writ which had been served a few days ago on an industrious farmer in Waterford for a debt of 4l. 6s. 2d., and the amount of costs marked on the back of the writ was 3l. 10s. That was a most mischievous state of things, and to remedy it he introduced this Bill, enabling assistant barristers to award costs to witnesses, which, considering the distances witnesses had sometimes to go, was a very necessary provision. The next provision of the Bill was to enable justices of the peace at petty sessions to take under their jurisdiction civil-bill cases to the amount of 40s. At present they had the power to adjudicate in suits instituted for the recovery of wages to the amount of 6l., and also to decide in cases of arbitration in mortality societies; and it was thought that the extension of the power generally to debts not exceeding 40s. would be a valuable improvement in the law in Ireland in reference to the recovery of small debts. The third provision had reference to the jurisdiction of recorders in certain cases. It was intended by the Municipal Act to give to recorders the same jurisdiction that was possessed by assistant barristers at quarter-sessions; but it would appear they had not the power to decide cases of ejectment or of replevin. It would be most salutary if recorders had jurisdiction in those cases, and it was the intention of the Municipal Act that they should have such power. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

, admitting that the hon. Gentleman's intention was laudable, felt himself, nevertheless, compelled to oppose the second reading of the Bill, on the ground of the legal difficulties that stood in the way of applying the provisions of the English measure to the machinery now existing in Ireland. One great difference was, that England enjoyed all the facilities of direct and rapid railway communication, which was as yet very partially extended to Ireland; and this was an important consideration in regard to the attendance of witnesses. Under the law, as it stood, the debtor had great powers, and was entitled to no favour from the Legislature. When the creditor had recourse to vexatious proceedings in a superior court, the debtor had the power of staying proceedings on payment of the debt with a small amount of costs. One improvement in the existing law was very necessary—to give the judge the power of awarding expenses actually incurred. It was objectionable to convert the petty sessions courts of justice into a kind of civil tribunal; the effect would be to create a scene of turmoil from one end of Ireland to the other. He did not think any improvement could be made on the law as it stood without adopting the whole of the county-court machinery; and this he was not prepared to do.

, while giving credit to the hon. Member for Cork for his good intentions, hoped the Bill would not be pressed. There were great legal obstructions in the way of any attempt to assimilate the law on small debts of the two countries; and he was convinced that the adoption of such a measure as the one before the House would be attended with great danger. Recently, the Solicitor General for Ireland and himself had minutely considered the subject; and they found that the difficulties were almost insuperable. In the discussion of the Small Debts Bill of last Session, it became evident that there was a large and influential party in Ireland opposed to an assimilation of the law. There were useful provisions in the measure; but upon the whole, it would be better to withdraw it.

regretted that the Bill would not be allowed to go into Committee, as then many of the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin might have been removed. It was quite natural to suppose that gentlemen of his profession would be opposed to any measure which went to facilitate the administration of the law. The hon. and learned Member had objected to the magistrates having jurisdiction in cases of small debts; yet he himself had a Bill on the Paper giving them cognisance of contracts, than which nothing involved more nice legal questions.

said, it had long been the complaint that the Legislature had not acted fairly towards Ireland; and as we had recently adopted an important measure in this country for facilitating the recovery of small debts, which had upon the whole succeeded well, it was desirable to extend the same principle to Ireland. With this view the principle of this Bill, at least, ought to be adopted; and if there were legal objections to the details, it was for the Government to get over those difficulties, by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. It was no answer to say that a party in Ireland was opposed to the change; why, every attorney in England had opposed the County Courts Bill.

supported the recommendation that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, who might also direct their inquiries to a general assimilation of the civil law of both countries.

said, he must express his sincere opinion of the great advantages which had been produced by the County Courts Act, which he thought might be still further extended. It had been no injury to the legal profession, but, on the other hand, a source of great remuneration. There was no doubt it was desirable to extend the same measure to Ireland; the only question was, whether this could best be done through the assistant barristers, or by a totally new machinery. He deprecated the practice of reading Bills a second time, and referring them to a Select Committee, when no one agreed upon any one of the details, but simply thought the object of the Bill a good one. The better course would be to bring in a Bill with nothing but a title or a preamble, and refer it to a Committee to draw the clauses. In this case no answer had been attempted to be given to the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University; and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cork, whether it would not be better to withdraw the Bill, and reintroduce it after the clauses were settled by competent parties. The provision for giving magistrates jurisdiction over small debts, he thought particularly objectionable; and there was nothing on which the House was agreed but the title of the Bill.

would recommend the withdrawal of the Bill, provided the Government would promise to take the matter into their hands, and bring in a Bill having the same object.

, while supporting the principle of this Bill, was opposed to the clause giving magistrates jurisdiction. He should vote for the second reading, with a view to the Bill going before a Select Committee.

said, he would withdraw the Bill, if the Government would pledge themselves to introduce a measure having the same object. If not, he should press the measure to a second reading, with the view to send it upstairs to a Select Committee.

said, the matter should have his best consideration, but he could not undertake to prepare and bring in a Bill himself.

said, in that case the right hon. Gentleman ought to consent to the second reading, a distant day being fixed for the next stage.

said, that since the Second Reading of this Bill, he had endeavoured to meet the difficulties made by the hon. Member for Cirencester, and, acting under legal advice, he had made several amendments in the Bill, upon which he hoped that the House would now go into Committee pro formâ.

did not know that he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire, but from communications which he had received from several high authorities, land agents and others, he was satisfied that they told him the truth when they said that the Bill was not required at all, and that it was better to let landlord and tenant alone. Whatever amendments might be made in the Bill, he objected so strongly to its principle, that he should oppose it in every stage.

thought that the Bill was a valuable measure, and as it was applicable to the circumstances of Ireland, he hoped that the hon. Member for Berkshire would consider the propriety of extending it to that country. It might be objected that the relations of landlord and tenant were so complicated in Ireland, that it would be impracticable to carry its provisions into execution; but though the Bill would not meet all the difficulties which existed on the subject, he was convinced that its extension to Ireland would be productive of great advantage.

understood that the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire was only to go into Committee pro formâ, and consequently that no discussion would take place now on the amendments which were to be inserted. He had read the Bill with every disposition to find something good it, but he was sorry to say that, though it would be useful to the lawyers, it would be very injurious to the tenant farmers. The want of clear definitions in the Bill would create great differences of opinion as to the rights of tenants, though at present no such difficulties existed. The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the chair, and certain amendments having been inserted in the Bill, and ordered to be printed, the House resumed.

expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Berkshire would allow ample time for the new Bill to be circulated through the country before he proceeded with it again.

observed that the changes in general were merely technical, and did not affect the provisions of the Bill in the slightest degree. There was nothing to diminish the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member, or to increase it.

hoped that, at all events, the hon. Member would not proceed with the Bill on Wednesdays.

believed that Wednesday was the proper day for the discussion of measures brought in by individual Members of Parliament. He remembered that when he brought the Bill in on a Friday, he was told that he was smuggling it in. The Bill was then recommitted for Wednesday 28th instant.

rose to move, pursuant to notice, to refer the above Bill to a Select Committee, by which means it would be advanced more rapidly. While doing so he would take that opportunity of referring to a statement made in one of the leading journals of this city, with respect to the case of a rev. gentleman, for whom that Bill was said to have been intended—he meant the Rev. Mr. Shore. Now as the statement made was directly at variance with the fact, he would briefly set the matter right by mentioning what were the real circumstances of the case. He found it mentioned in a morning paper—

"That the object of proceedings taken against the Rev. Mr. Shore in the Arches Courts, was not the imprisonment of that gentleman, nor for the purpose of deposing him from his functions as a clergyman, but because having been cautioned against doing so, he still persisted in officiating in an unconsecrated house of worship without a license from the Bishop."

Now, without insisting upon it that the proposed divestment of holy orders would relieve the rev. gentleman from his liability in the Ecclesiastical Courts, he (Mr. Bouverie) would simply state that the allegation contained in the paragraph which he had read was not the fact, but the very contrary to the fact. He happened to have in his possession the form of proceedings taken in the ecclesiastical courts, which had been laid before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He found there, that, according to the prayer of the articles exhibited against the Rev. Mr. Shore, it was to the effect—

"That that gentleman should be admonished to abstain from publicly administering the sacraments, preaching or performing Divine service in the said chapel; and that if he should refuse compliance with that admonition, he might be dealt with and punished in proportion to the nature of his offence, according to the provisions and extent of the law."

Then he found in the judgment delivered by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust a full confirmation of what he asserted. The hon. Member here read an extract from the judgment referred to, and concluded by observing that the object of the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court was to depose the Rev. Mr. Shore from his clerical functions, and therefore the statement alluded to was not only not the fact, but decidedly contrary to the fact.

said, he was glad that the hon. Member had determined to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; and he hoped, if it went there, that a provision would be introduced into it by which a clergyman might be divested of his office by the same authority which had invested him with it. The Bill, as it at present stood, almost enabled a clergyman to divest himself of his office with as little trouble as it would take to blow his nose; and he thought that was far too summary a proceeding for so serious a business. A military officer was obliged to resign his office through the hands of the same authorities who had appointed him to it; and that principle might very properly be extended to ecclesiastical matters.

did not wish to anticipate the result of the deliberations of the Select Committee; but he rose to make some observations upon what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. He could not help thinking that his hon. Friend had not perfectly understood the bearing of the form of the proceedings in the ecclesiastical court. He did not know in which of the morning journals the statement had appeared to which his hon. Friend had referred; but he understood the writer of the article to contend that the object of the proceeding by the Bishop against the Rev. Mr. Shore, was practically to depose him from the office of a minister of the Church of England. His hon. Friend did not seem to be aware that the Bishop could not pray for the Rev. Mr. Shore's deposition, on account of his preaching in an unlicensed chapel. All, therefore, that he could possibly do was to avail himself of the existing provisions of the law, and to go into the ecclesiastical court, and pray for such punishment as the law of the land directed. It did not appear to him, therefore, that any observation fairly arose out of the form of the proceeding upon the statement to which his hon. Friend had referred.

remarked, that in the course of the judgment, the learned Judge who presided said, that, as he understood, the prayer of the Bishop's counsel was to the same effect as the prayer of the articles.

said, that was a matter of course.

said, that, lest he should be supposed to concur with the hon. Member for Henleyshire—[Laughter]—Oxfordshire, he should say—he must declare that he saw no reason why the least obstacle should be interposed to a clergyman's quitting the Church, when he could not conscientiously continue to hold its doctrines. Any other course would encourage hypocrisy; and he hoped that the Committee upstairs would place every facility in the way of a clergyman's leaving the Church under such circumstances.

wished it to be clearly understood that he did not concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He would submit it to the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, whether, instead of going into a discussion on the details of the Bill, it would not be better merely to consider the question as to sending it before a Select Committee?

referred to the case of a clergyman who had left the Church, and had become a Roman Catholic layman. He had been appointed a Government inspector of schools, and had been gazetted to that office as an esquire. He wished to know whether that gentleman could not, under the provisions of this Bill, be elected a Member of that House?

observed, that he had given notice on the Paper that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; but he was happy to find that he was anticipated in his intention by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, who had charge of the Bill. He had received communications from various parts of the country respecting this measure, and from them it appeared that there was no objection to the principle of allowing clergymen to leave the Church; the only question was, as to the mode of doing so.

asked when the proper time would arrive for presenting a petition in favour of this Bill, which was agreed to at a public meeting at which upwards of 5,000 persons were present, and which he wished to have referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

observed, that a Motion to that effect could not be made until the Committee on the Bill was appointed.

said, that the measure was a most important one, and he thought it was pressed with too great a degree of rapidity; in his opinion, more time should be given for considering it.

said, that the Bill had been before the House for six weeks; it had been carefully criticised by a Committee upstairs, so that he could see no objection to proceeding with it now. The 1st and 2nd Clauses were then agreed to.

wished to be informed whether a Member who, through being engaged in a suit of law or equity, was called upon for the payment of costs, would, through the operation of the Bill, be deprived of his seat?

said, the Bill would apply to costs as well as to everything else. If a person who had been ordered to pay costs did not pay them, the person entitled to receive them would proceed in exactly the same manner as he would if he had a judgment against any one for the payment of an ordinary debt. After a day had been fixed by the court for hearing, there would be six months' additional notice; and upon the declaration of insolvency, the seat would be vacated.

saw no reason why there should be a different law for bankrupt and for insolvent Members. By the present law the bankrupt Member was allowed twelve months before he vacated his seat; they should either give the same period to the insolvent Member, or state the time during which a bankrupt might sit. Under any circumstance, the law should be uniform. He could not help feeling that this was a subject towards which the Government should direct its attention, with the view of considering whether the Members of both Houses of Parliament should not be placed on the same footing. It would not be a state of the law calculated to raise in public estimation the other House if they passed a Bill of this nature, by which they disgraced and deprived of protection insolvent Members of that House, and did nothing to prevent insolvent persons legislating in the other House. He might be told, that it would be easy for the other House to take the initiative in legislating for themselves; but it would be better for the Government, which had the power of initiating measures in both Houses, to bring in a general measure applicable to the Members of both Houses. At any rate, if this measure should pass, he trusted that a similar Bill would be introduced into the other House applicable to the Members of it.

said, that he gave every credit for good motives to his hon. Friend who had introduced this measure; but he thought that they were proceeding altogether on a false principle. It was quite clear, from the explanation of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, that the mere circumstance of being indebted and having lost a suit at law, and being unable to pay heavy costs, would lead to the loss of his seat by any Member of the House so circumstanced. That appeared to be at variance with the principle of the constitution. Constituencies did not elect men to be Members of that House because they were rich, but for their political principles, their general attainments, or their local connexion with a place. A man was not elected a Member of that House because he was able to pay his debts. He thought they had no right to impose a limitation on the electors of the British empire as to whom they should elect, unless there had been something disgraceful on the part of a person so offering himself; but here you say a man shall not be elected, because he cannot pay a debt within a certain limited period. If the Bill had been in existence fifty years ago, neither Fox, nor Sheridan, nor even Pitt himself, could have had a seat in that House. He trusted that the House would not consent to pass this Bill without fully considering the subject, and without having a previous discussion on it, as it involved an important principle. He would only add, that if his hon. Friend had proposed to delay the Bill, or to get rid of it altogether, he would have voted with him. Giving every credit to his hon. Friend for having introduced this Bill, he (Sir W. Clay) must say, with all deference to him, that he considered it to be objectionable in its nature, and founded on a false principle.

observed, that the effect of this Bill would be, that when a Member became insolvent he would have to vacate his seat; but there was nothing to prevent the electors of a place electing him again. It might be said, that if he was insolvent he would have no qualification; but it was a very common thing for Members to hold qualifications which could not be affected in the way supposed. He believed if the Bill had been in existence half a century ago it would not have had the effect of excluding Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, or Mr. Pitt from seats in that House. It might, however, very probably, have had the effect of preventing them getting into debt. There was nothing in the Bill but this, that a candidate having been elected on the condition that he was solvent, but afterwards becoming insolvent, the House gave to the electors the opportunity of reconsidering whether he was a fit person to represent them, he having so become insolvent. As to the Act relating to cases of bankruptcy, it appeared to him proper to make the law more stringent as affecting insolvents than as regarded bankrupts; for the affairs of a trader might become accidentally involved on contingency, which did not apply with equal force to cases of insolvency. It was true, that in cases of bankruptcy the seat was not voided for twelve months, but during that time the Member could not sit or vote in Parliament, and so the borough was for that time practically unrepresented; whereas by the present Bill the borough would not be unrepresented during the time mentioned therein. It had been thought undesirable to touch anything which related to the bankrupt law. With regard to extending the Bill to the House of Lords, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that any such proposition should spontaneously emanate from that House. His hon. Friend near him said he wished to extend the present Bill to the House of Peers, because he knew such a course would be fatal to the measure, which he believed to be wrong in principle. If the Bill were wrong in principle, let it be rejected in a straightforward way at once, and not in an indirect manner, by the addition of a provision which it might be supposed would certainly cause the rejection of it in another place. The graceful manner of proceeding would be for the House to make the Bill applicable only to themselves; then to send it to the other House, and leave it to the Peers to decide whether they would extend its operation. All these points had undergone a great deal of consideration and discussion in the Committee upstairs, and it had been considered beneficial to assimilate the Bill with the law of bankruptcy, or to introduce a clause relating to the House of Peers.

said, it appeared to him, from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Bill was "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." The hon. and learned Gentleman propounded the principle, that a man might be insolvent and lose his seat, and yet that he might borrow a new qualification, and be again returned to Parliament. When such doctrines as these were laid down, what must the people think of the legislative improvements that were going on? He concurred in all that had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but felt it necessary to oppose the Bill; for he considered, after what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that its fate was scaled.

said, that this Bill had nothing to do with the Members of the other House, who held their tenure upon a different principle, and he would rather leave the decision of the point to their own honour than insert a clause in the Bill. If the Lords did not choose to put in such a clause, it would only damage their character, and place them in a position in which no honourable men would be seen. However, the declared opinions of the House of Commons had some influence in another place, and from what he had heard from several noble Lords, he believed there was a strong feeling among them that a measure of this kind should apply to them also. There ought to be some provision in the Bill against its being applied to cases where the difficulty had arisen from merely the costs in proceedings at law; for a man of 3,000l. a year, and not being improvident or extravagant, might have his means charged with a long accumulating attorney's bill amounting to thousands, and there ought to be some guard against the operation of the Bill in the case of an action brought against him for such an accumulation.

said, there was no provision of such a kind in the law relating to bankruptcy cases; but at the same time he thought that a man who was made insolvent only on account of costs, certainly stood in a different position from a man who had become insolvent by reason of his own misconduct. The case was, however, provided for in this Bill by the discretion given to the Judge, and that was the only way in which such a contingency could be dealt with. If hon. Members endeavoured in include all cases of particular hardship within the scope of such a Bill, they would find it impossible to deal with them, in detail, with any prospect of a satisfactory arrangement.

observed, that in legislation it was expedient to take away discretion from a Judge as far as possible, by making the law clear. To illustrate what he meant, he would take his own case. There had been a time when the Government would have given a great deal to get him out of Parliament for troubling them so often. And so would the Judges also, because he was in a bad odour with them, in consequence of having proposed a reduction in their salaries. Suppose the loss of a heavy Chancery suit had placed him in the position contemplated by the Bill, what chance should he have had in the discretion of those Judges if, through the medium of the courts, he could have been deprived of his seat? His own time was now nearly gone; but, looking to the circumstances which might hereafter arise in the case of others, he entreated the House, seeing how often Judges had been favourable to the objects of Government, not to give them a discretion or power in such a matter.

explained, that he was friendly to the principle of the Bill, but had been greatly surprised at the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, that a person with insolvency in full force against him would be capable of taking his seat again in the House. He protested against such an inference as contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Was a bankrupt capable of taking his seat again while the fiat was in force? After an insolvent had obtained his discharge, it might, perhaps, be proper to put him in the same position as before; but he abjured a principle by which a man who might be a most fraudulent debtor would be eligible to resume his seat. He thought it was at least the duty of the Committee to insert a clause providing that no insolvent should be eligible to a seat until he had obtained his discharge. He would deal with the bankruptcy and insolvency cases in the same way, and he did not see why the period fixed by law should not be the same in both cases. He preferred the shorter period—six months—named in the present Bill. If they wished the other House to follow their example, they must refuse to allow an insolvent to be eligible to re-election until after he had obtained his discharge. As to the question that had arisen with respect to insolvency caused by costs only, the proper mode of meeting the case would be to introduce a clause providing that a debt solely arising from costs should not he a ground for bringing the Act into operation.

said, that as the law stood, a judgment might be obtained against a Member of Parliament, and execution levied against his property; but everybody knew there were easy modes by which he could dispossess himself of such property, and then no remedy was loft to the creditor in consequence of privilege. If he lost his seat he was placed in the same position as any one else, and possession could be obtained of his person. With respect to the House of Lords, he deprecated interference by the House of Commons. He gave his support to the Bill.

would state a case which might very often occur: a man possessed of considerable estate might be deprived of it by the decision of a court of justice, and be ruined by the costs and the loss of his estate at the same time; but if the decision happened to be in his favour, he might sit without any merit of his. When he previously addressed the House, he had mentioned the cases of Pitt and Fox, and the argument which he founded on them was answered by saying, that in such cases the law would be evaded; but he would rejoin by asking, why pass a law which it might be necessary or desirable to evade? It was his view of the subject, that, if any body of electors thought a poor man was also an honest politician, they ought to possess the right to elect him. He would put another case: suppose a man had suffered an adverse decision in a court of justice, and had appealed from it, ought he to be considered, pending that appeal, an insolvent debtor within the meaning of the Bill then before them? Surely he ought not to be so considered, for he might never have owed the debt. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

denied that the Bill interfered with the constitutional right of the people to choose any person they thought proper to represent them. There was nothing to interfere with their choice, except what was contained in the existing law; and the Bill merely called upon the electors to say what was their wish with regard to the person who should represent them in the altered state of circumstances.

thought the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed, because there had not been sufficient time since it was printed, to examine its details. He did not see how, if an insolvent was re-elected, what was to prevent him from being again and again turned out. Many Members sat in that House without any qualification at all. Scotch Members required no qualification, neither did the sons of Peers. This Bill, however, would interfere with that principle. He thought, too, that the 4th and the 8th Clauses would not work together. For these reasons he should support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets.

supported the Motion for the Chairman reporting progress; and said he should give the Bill his decided opposition upon the third reading. There appeared to be a great disposition on the part of that House to legislate against its own Members. At present, it was almost impossible for any Member to resist a petition against him. Nothing need be done but for some agent from the enemy's camp to act as a traitor, and give a sovereign to a voter, and no Committee dared refuse to turn the Member out. He would not himself yield up the present privileges of the House, unless the corresponding privileges of another place were also abandoned. It was, however, impossible to expect that.

knew not whether the Committee would consent to add the new element of confusion suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down; but there was sufficient confusion in the Bill already to induce him to support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets. When he heard the hon. and learned Solicitor General rise in his place and state that the Bill would not effect its professed object, he thought the variance between the title of the Bill and its clauses a sufficient reason why it should not be allowed to advance further. Some delicacy was naturally felt by hon. Members in speaking upon such a subject, from a fear of labouring under the imputation of personal motives. When he heard a Bill in which they had all so great an interest going through Committee clause after clause so rapidly, he was tempted to inquire how this came to pass. He had been told, he hoped it was not true, that the reason was because all the insolvent Members had gone to the levee. Passing that by, he might remind the hon. Member who conducted the Bill, that one right hon. Gentleman of great authority in that House, who was then absent, but whom, after what had been said, it would be invidious to name, protested most strenuously against it, and stated that he had a great deal to say upon it, and that although he was not opposed to some modification of the existing system, he thought this Bill would fail to produce its intended effect. There had been times when votes were of greater value than now, but advantage might still he taken on critical occasions of a power which enabled any individual to exclude a Member from the House.

said, the Bill had been misunderstood. It would be impossible for the House to go on under the slur of having Members who used their privileges for the purpose of cheating their creditors; and if they wished to raise themselves in public estimation, and secure respect for their deliberations, they must pass a Bill of this description. The difficulty was as to the re-election of Members, and this might be obviated by the addition of a clause making such reelection dependent on payment of debts. Reference had been made to the other House; but though they could not he expected to take the initiative, they might be induced to follow if the example were set by the House of Commons. If the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets was desirous of amending the Bill, why did he refuse to continue the discussion of its clauses? They had yet two hours and a half, and they could not have a better opportunity.

said, there was such a thing as being too good. It might be exceedingly proper that the House should afford no shelter to men who would not pay their debts; but it was a very different thing for the House to undertake a work of supererogation with reference to men against whom proceedings were taken. There might be cases where such a proceeding would be attended with considerable danger, both in the outset and afterwards. There was hardly a Member who had not been wooed to put his name, either as chairman or director, to some company or other. The glorious uncertainty of the law which existed in the time of our ancestors, existed in our own; and Gentlemen might be a little uneasy if they were made debtors to associations of that kind. There was an instance of a club in London, in which some difficulty arose as to the claret that had been drank, and which certain hon. Gentlemen had been called upon to pay. It had terrified him out of the club. If a Member were not able to pay his debts, why should he not he entrusted to the care of the sheriff's officer until he did pay them? Let him be handed over to the tormentors, and then there would be no fear of his again taking his seat in the House until he got out of their hold.

regretted that he could not accede to the request of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The principle of the Bill was simply to prevent Members from evading payment of their debts. As to the objection, with reference to Members being directors of railway companies, it did not apply, because they were already liable as traders under the bankruptcy laws. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire North had complained of the Bill, on the ground that it introduced a new principle; but no new principle whatever was involved in it, as the object was merely to make general the liability to which Members connected with commercial houses were already subjected. As no ground whatever had been laid for a postponement, he should feel bound to resist the Motion.

, in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), and in reply also to observations which had fallen from another hon. Friend near him, begged to say that he was, for his own part, perfectly persuaded that nothing that could be done with the Bill could remove the faultiness of its principle; and he was surprised to think how his hon. Friend the Member for Dartmouth, feeling as he did upon the subject, could have given the measure his support.

approved of the Bill so far as it went, but thought that great advantage would be gained by placing such rates upon the landlords, and not upon the tenants.