SIR JOHN TRELAWNY'S RESOLUTION.
Tin House of Commons is disinclined to proceed further with the Moorad-Butt case, although most people expected something fur- ther to be done. We told the story of it last week. Mr. Roe- buck distinctly charged a Member of the House with having re- ceived money for the advocacy of a cause within the walls. If he had done so, the Member for Youghal would not only have been guilty of a breach of the privilege of Parliament, but he would have committed a far graver offence, involving a malver- sation of his power as a Member of Parliament for private pur-
Ms. It is here that the true offence lies. The law forbidding bers generally to appear in the House as the paid counsel of private petitioners, will operate only as a protection to a strange and perverted monopoly, if lawyers are to be an exception to it. If the practice were at once permitted, paid advocacy would be open to all parties, whether injured or seeking new privileges ; yet so long as the prohibition exists, an unfair advantage is ob- tained by any person who can covertly buy the services of a Mem- ber. The brief resolutions reported by the Select Committee in the case before it, were, perhaps in some degree, an evasion of the duty reposed in the Committee. The report consisted in a verdict of "not proven "but, a verdict is not a judgment, nor is it the function of a Committee, properly considered, to pass final judgment. When the House refers a question to a Select Committee, it does not ask for a verdict, for a dogmatic decision upon the facts, but it asks for an analysis of the facts, and pro- perly speaking, the duty of giving the verdict as well as judg- ment remains with the House. The facts adduced before the Committee certainly challenged an analysis ; and we see that such a process was possible, for it has been performed, though of course without authority, by Mr. Finlason. In the course of the evidence which has been brought pro- minently forward, some very remarkable facts are stated. Mr. Butt was engaged for his services as counsel ; he was paid a large sum in cash, and had the promise of four times as much contin- gently. If any legal business was transacted. it appears to have been of an exceedingly slight, almost of a constructive, character. But Mr. Butt did use great exertions, and attained very great progress, in pushing the case of his client with the Executive, and be attempted to do so in Parliament. He voted against his own party with the Minister, and the Minister pressed, the East India Company in favour of Mr. Butt's client. Now, it would. have been very desirable if the Select Committee to whom the inquiry was delegated, after collecting all the raw materials of the ease, bad brought together the most important facts, had placed them in the proper order for the purpose of forming a judgment, and had referred to the House, not a general verdict, but a statement of the case, in the nature of a special verdict. The Committee took upon itself the duty of the House, and the House appears to have acquiesced in being left without a function. Sir John Trelawny proposed to revive, by a virtual repetition, those resolutions which prohibit the taking of money payment by Members for services in Parliament; but he is answered that the resolutions still stand good ; that the late case was decided upon the facts, not upon the law ; and that while it will have the effect of a "solemn warning" for other Members, there is no necessity to adopt any new resolutions. This leaves the subject in rather an inconvenient position. The whole facts of the late affair may be construed by many persons into a practical demonstration that the existing law will not be generally enforced with strictness. Instead of a warning, therefore, the case may operate as an invi- tation. Should it do so, the licence to infringe upon the rule of Parliament may be practically extended. On the other hand, at some untoward day, the Minister for the time being might sud- denly take this half-forgotten law from the armoury where it lies idle, and use it to punish some Member not more culpable than others, but perhaps inconvenient to the Ministry in other ways. If there are objections to renewing the resolutions of the House against such practices, the defect of the proceedings in the present case may be amended by going back upon the facts, and by revising the report of the Committee while collating it with the evidence. But we may guess at divers reasons against any such course of action. One would be felt on every side of the House, for there is an universal disposition to avoid pressing with any severity upon Mr. Butt. But there is a stronger reason. In the House of Commons there is a great number of lawyers, and, considering that they must take money for their services in the profession, while their position in the House must very often assist their pro- fessional influence, it is very difficult to lay down a line on one side of which the acceptance of money would only be the receipt of the proper honorarium, while on the other it would be a mis- demeanour. A third reason, perhaps, weighs even more heavily. The relations of men become more complicated with the change in the state of society. The Member of Parliament is no longer simply a country gentleman ; he has property in mines, funds, railways, public companies, &c. There are gentlemen whose so- cial status and revenue are supposed to be derived almost entirely from a species of agency. But gentlemen, however " honoturable," will always be disposed to speak up for interests in which they are personally involved • and it is this lurking sense of almost uni- versal agency which cheeks Members when, there is a talk about reviving laws against the acceptance of money payments. The House therefore, labours under disabilities in dealing finally and effeetWally with ihe ease which it has allowed the Select Committee to cushion.
Previous page
