New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-07-13


We have referred two or three times already TO
the proceedings in the British House Of Commons,
growing out of the case of Mr. Butt, a barrister
and member for Youghall, who was charged with
using bis position a member of the House to pro-
mote the interests Of an Indian Ameer, whose re-
tanned advocate he was. The committee to whom
the c,se was referred. after examining Mr.. Butt
and other witnesses, exculpsted hi n from the
charge Of corruption. But as i appeared that Dir.
Butt had been at the same time the legal adviser
Of the Ameer, and bis Parliamentary advocate, and
in order to meet prevailing suspicion that Par
lianentary support was often purchased, and paid
under the guise Of legal advice, an attempt was
made to obtain a condemnation Of this practice, IN
the Shape Of resolution Of the House, that "the
receipt of any species OF reward by member, in
consideration Of the exercise of his influence IN
THAT capacity, is calculsted to lower the dignity
"of the House, and is high breach Of
"the privileges OF Parliament" OF the de-
bate on this resolution we gave some ac-
count II was opposed on variety of grounds
as too general, as not specific enough, and as adding
nothing to the resolution Of 1885, still in force, BY
which it was declared high misdemeanor to offer
money or other advantage to member for promo.
ting any matter depending in Parliament. After
long debate the mover was induced to withdraw
the resoluten, on the ground that the opinions ex-
pressed in the debate would accomplish the object
aimed at. The advocates of positive expression
of opinion on the part Of the House recently how
ever, returned to the charge, Lord Hotham having
offered q resolution that sit is contrary to the
"us.ge and derosatory TO the dignity of the House
that any Of its members should bring forward, pro.
I" mote or advocate in the House any proceeding or
" mea:ure in which he may have acted or been con.
cerned for or in consideration Of any pecunay fee
or reward" lie stated expressly thatthe with
which he wished to deal was that OF legal members of
the House being retained in a regular manner
for the discharge Of their duties in
Court of Law, and then being asked to bring
forward the same case in their place in
Parliament. Many members Of the legal pro.
fession of high well as low stations had expressed
their cordial appreciation Of the resolution. Unless
honorable gentlemen believed that legal member
who received fee Of great magnitude in conHiers-
ton Of duty which be was afterward told it was
not necessary for him to perform, and who subse
quently brought the matter before that House,
would not be bound By the fee he received, they
could not do otherwise than vote for his resolution
In the year 1890, in consequence of member
having entered int a partnership with another
gentleman to carry on the business Of q Parlis-
mentaiy agent, resolution was passed By the
Hou,e without a dissentient voice, condemnatory
Of the practice and on the following day the part
nership was dissolved. The late Committee, in
dealing with the case submitted to it, contented
itself with giving verdict tantamOunt TO an acquit
tai of the member concerned without saying
word about the practice, Of the existence Of which
there was no doubt. The seconder Of the motion
stated that he had frequently argued this question
but had always been told that the rscep. of these
fees was strictly professionals term which he had
never been able 10 translate, except descriptive
of disposition to get the greatest possible amount
of payment for the least possible amount Of work.
Great efforts were mMe to get rid Of this resolu-
ton in the same way the former one had been dis
pored Of L. was vehemently opposed by the So
licitor. General and the Attorney General, both Of
whom, speaking on behalf of their fellow members
of the legal profession, strenuously denied that
there was any occasion for it in the conduct of
members. Another legal member went so far a.
to ssy that be had never heard Of imputstions of
the kind. Even Mr.. Roebuek, though be expressed
lis envy Of the gentleman who had been able TO
walk through Westminster Hall without hearing
members Of the House charged, and BY name too,
with having accepted fees for the advocacy in Par
Lament Of particular lines of coIduct-while e1-
peessiDg The opinion that the legal profession was
much Indebted TO Lord Hotham for bringing for
ward bis motion, yet argued at the same time that
tie House had done al il had 10 DO, and that here
after no lawyer would dare infringe the line Of COD
duet which the debate had marked out. But Lord
Hothsm refused to be persuaded, and insisted upon
pressing his motion TO 9 division. Very few Of
those who had wished to defeat the resolution had
the courage to vote agsinat it, and il was carried
by vote Of two hundred and ten to twenty.
seven. Henceforward it will be contrary 10 the
order Of the House Of Commons for any member
TO promote the action Of the House on any subec!
as to which be had previously been feed adviser.
-.
John Mitchell has ceased, We Judge, to consider