The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-27 00:00:00

PRIVILEGE.

Mr. LITTLETON said, that in rising to 'fling forward
the motion of which he had given notice, it was to him a
matter of real regret that it should prejudice in any way
the views of any Member of that House. He was influenced
by no personal feeling towards the Member for Colchester
(Mr. D. W. Harvey). fills motion originated in a petition
be presented last. Friday from Mr. Ayre Lee. This gentleman,
as he stated upon that occasion, received a letter signed
W. R. Sidney, announcing that the writer had entered into
a professional connection with Mr. D. W. Harvey, a
Member of that House, for the purpose of carrying on the
business of a Parliamentary agency, and of forwarding
private Bills through the House. This letter was franked
by the Hon. Member (Mr. Harvey). It immediately
struck him as extraordinary that any Member of that
House should undertake to manage private Bills for pecu-
niary fee or reward. He felt assured that the petitioner,
Mr. Ayre Lee, was not influenced in what he hail done
by any party, or by any opposition he had met with from
the Member
.for Colchester in any Committee. Having
thus shortly stated the case, he would proceed to show what
he conceived to be the practice of the House in matters of
this kind, and the grounds of his motion. In the year
1666 a Resolution was agreed to, declaring the offer of
any money to a Member of that House for the transaction
of any business in Parliament, was a breach of the privi-
leges of the House. The Resolution which he should pro-
pose declared it to be a gross breach of privilege for any
Member to engage for fee or reward in the management of
any private Bill, through himself or his partner, in that or
the other House of Parliament. The Member for Colchester
defended the practice, and he was at liberty if he pleased
to take the sense of the House upon it. He said that other
Members did the very same, and that no notice was taken
of it. After all the inquiry he (Mr. L.) could make,
he was unable to discover that any solicitor, being a
Member of the House, had embarked for fee or reward in
the management of private Bills, with the knowledge of
the House. It would be useless to prove that such a thing
had been done unless it was done with the cognizance of
the House. He would now repeat again, that Sir James
Graham and Mr. Smith, who was Solicitor to the East
India Company, never participated in the fees arising
from the management of private Bills. He could not
admit the force of the argument drawn by the lion.
Gentleman from the case of the Attorney and Solicitor-
General. There was an instance of these officers having re-
ceived a fee for business done in the House, and they were now
present to answer for themselves. The Hon. Member on Fri-
day night alluded to the case of private Bills involving the in-
terests of individual Members, who still sat in Comtuittee on
these Bills, or voted on them in the House. It must cer-
tainly often happen to every county Member, to find him-
self personally interested in private Bills, and this could
not possibly be avoided altogether. But that was quite a
different case. 'When a Member had a direct pecuniary
interest, his vote was disallowed, as frequently happened
in 1825 and 1826, when Members of that House were
connected with the various companies that were then set
on foot. A Select Committee was appointed to inquire
into these transactions, and the consequence was the ap-
pointment of an Appeal Committee, to which they were to
be referred. This operated as an effectual remedy. The
Member for Aberdeen brought forward a motion, the object
of which was to prevent any Member of that House,
having an interest in a Bill, from taking any part in it.—
His Resolution was rejected, and the House reserved to it-
self the right of dealing with every case as it occurred.—
The usage of Parliament was against the Hon. Member
(Mr. Harvey) for there was no instance of the kind upon
the Journals, and he believed for this reason, that the pre-
sent was the very first time the question arose. Barristers,
who were Members of that House, were not allowed to
plead in Committees or at the bar of the House. No dif-
ference, in this respect, should be made between them and
Solicitors. By a Resolution agreed to in 1666, Members
of the House, being Barristers, were not allowed to plead
at the bar of the other, either on questions of Common
Law or on Bills. This Resolution was modified in 1669,
when the House declared they saw no reason why Mem-
bers of that House should be prevented from pleading at
-the bar of the other, on Common Law cases, the House
of Lords being a Court of Judicature, as well as a branch
of the Legislature. Pleading on Bills, however, was de-
clared to be a different thing, as Bills might come before
them, as Members of the House, in their legislative capa-
city. In a recent case, that of the Queen's trial, the
Lords applied for permission to have the Member for Win-

chelsea and the Member for Knaresborough at their bar to
plead against a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Time was
taken for consideration. This permission was refused for
some days, but at length granted with great caution and
with a proviso that it should not be drawn into a prece-
dent. This he thought was quite sufficient in support of
the Resolution he should propose. His first thought was
to refer the matter to a select number of the Committee 01
Privileges : but this, upon subsequent consideration, he
deemed unnecessary, as all the facts were admitted. It was
merely a question of moral propriety, and even if a pre-
cedent could be produced against him, be would still call