New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-10

a precedeut established there was iikeJ 70 DC
adopted az the rule Of the world.
Lold Hottarp doubted whether the proposed re'o'
luton exactly met the difficulty. he had never near'
4 in nuted fiat members Of the legal profession
holding seats in the House accepted money on
the promise of giving Parliamentary services IN re-
tuIp. What wss imputed was, that members o.
the gal profe, sion having seats in the House were
retained by large fees, in the ordinary manner lot
business professedy to come before the courts OF
law that Ct rsin consultations took place, at which
SON body suggested that the business could not be
satisfactorily dealt with by court of law and that
an application ought to be made to Parliament
whereupon an application was made to one OF the
learned gentlemen who had been retained to bring
the matter up. The imputation was of money
paid in this indirect way, and be thought the House
was bound to see if stop could not be put to that
practice.
Sir James Graham, who had been Chairman of
the Committee Of investigation, did not think any
new r, solution necessary. There was no question
as to the rule. The Only difficulty was as to the
fsct-had the rule been iufrinsed' He agreed that
cases might arise which ran very closely to an In
fripeement of the rule, but il impossible, with
out serious injury to the House to exclude from
it members Of the bar in great practice. Questions
would arte in the Courts Of law which ultimately
becsme subjects of discussion in Parliament. The
resl test of good faith appeared to him to be the
publicity of the transaction. If there were COM
plete publicity, and if the amount of the fee re-
ceived wss not beyond that usually paid in cases OF
the sort, he thought there was danger in permit
tirp gentlemen of the lorg robe to act in business
before the House, as to which they had been pro-
fessionally consulted out of doors. he referred 70
the cases of Mr.. Burke, Sir James Macintosh,
Mr.. Huskisson, and Mr.. ROebuck, all OF
whom had been paid advocates of different
Colonies while holding seats in the House.
In those csses, the publicity Of the payments made
to the did diminish to certain extent the weight
of the opinions of those members on behalf OF the
Colonies for which they acted thus counteractlng
all the evil effects which might otherwise have
arisen from those payments. In case OF any gross
violation of the rule, the House had always been
prompt TO act, and he thought no new reso-
luton necessary. He was quite sure that even
the recent investigation, terminating as it did In
the complete acquittal of the honorable ana
Ii armed member, yet marked the Jealousy OF the
House in respect Of any conduct capable Of being
construed into corruption. The circumstance that
such an investigation had been made was warn
ing, and he thought most sufficient one. The
present discussion would operate in the same way
as solemn caution to lawyers, members of the
House, and at the same time receiving large fees
out of doors in questions coming before it.
Mr. j. d. Fitzgerald (ste Attorney General for
Ireland) observed that the resolution Of 1896 was
aimed not against members receiving brides, but
against persons offering to bride them. The pun
ishment of members who SO far forgot Themselves
as to accept rewards in their capacity ofegisators,
depended upon no written laws, but was based
upon well.established Parliamentary practice, and
nothing would be gained by new resolution on the
subject.
Mr.. Mangles, an East India Director, though
ready to accept the report of the Committee as
complete exculpation of the memberwbos conduct
had been questioned, yet could not but state that
great pisches had resulted from the practice, which
prevailed extensively, of legal gentlemen taking
large fees from persons having grievances to COM
plain of against the Government of India, and then
advocating or protesting to advocate the same
claims in that House. The natives of India could
lever be made to understand the distinction set up,
that these fees were exclusively for legal advice.
Those natives Of India who came to EngandOn bust
ness would not fail to tell their countymen that the
services of members of the House could be obtained
for money and this opnOo would prevail as long as
the prerent practice continued. Nor would any
dstinct ton be made between the legal and the non
professional members of that House The people
of Iada would believe that every member could be
bought if they could only pay his price. Every.
body had heard stories of presents of shaws and
jewels, not only to members, but to ndlvlduals OF
The fairer who might be supposed to have IN
iluence over members. Those stories went to
Iudis, spd the result was that the natives believed
that Parlisment was entirely venal body. Some
meals ought to be adopted for declaring it neither
honorable nor proper for lawyers to move In the
House with matters in which they were retained
out of doorr. plain expreaon Of opinion, by
way Of resolution, to that effect, he thought woulf
redouDd alike to the credit of Parliament and the
good government Of India.
Mr. Fox would remark that there were gentle
men, not lawyers, who had interests in matters
that came before the HOuse-ralways and other
schemes-which they advocated, notwithstanding
the benefits which success would confer upon
them. He locked to Parliamentary reform as the
great remedy, but the resolution proposed would
at least have the benefit of sho wing that the sense
Ct purity still survived in the House.
IL &c