REWARDS TO MEMBERS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 30 July 1858)

§ MR. SCHNEIDER
said, he wished to give some explanation with reference to a question which he had put the other night to the Attorney General. That question arose out of the Resolution passed on the 22nd of June, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham) relative to remuneration given to Members for business done in the House. That Resolution he believed to be utterly impracticable with reference to the purpose for which it was introduced; and could not be carried into effect. He fully agreed with the spirit of the Resolution, but had divided the House against it, because he thought it highly inexpedient that a Resolution should be placed on the books of the House which must be continually evaded. He wished the House clearly to understand, that if this feeling 2348 which induced him and those who voted with him to oppose this Resolution, and he thought it only fair that this explanation should be put upon record as their motives had been much misinterpreted; but the language was so wide as to include cases which had not been contemplated by the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) who had moved it. Especially it had not been intended to apply to the case of the Attorney and Solicitor General, but yet the language embraced both of them. These officers were paid, not by salaries, but by fees, and it could not be the intention of the House that they should be deprived of their fees. But since the Resolution had been passed more than one member of the long robe had supported measures in reference to which he had at one time or another received a fee. The Resolution would even apply to the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson). Years ago that hon. Member had been asked to give his advice on the main drainage of the metropolis and had received a fee for so doing; and in this Session he had lent his assistance to carry out a Bill embodying his views. But no one ever thought of calling his conduct in question, although he had distinctly violated the language of the Resolution; on the contrary, the House felt deeply indebted to that hon. Gentleman for the able assistance he had rendered throughout the discussions on that Bill. In the present state of the House, and at this period of the Session, he (Mr. Schneider) felt that he would not be doing his duty if he did more than call the attention of the House to the subject; but he hoped that some Member of the Government would take the matter into his consideration, and would next Session bring forward some Resolution which would really carry out the intention of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham), while it should be free from the objections which he had stated. He was afraid that several hon. Members had had imputations cast upon them in consequence of the language of the Resolution. The noble Lord who had moved it, if he had been present, would, he felt confident, have corroborated his statement, that he had never intended to cast imputations upon hon. Members. In conclusion, he would move that the terms of the Resolution should be read.

§ MR. WARREN
said, that he rose before the Attorney General, for the purpose of saying a few words on this subject on his own account, and also on behalf of the noble Lord to whose recent Resolution the matter before the House related. He had received a letter from his noble Friend requesting him to explain the cause of his absence—a public engagement in the country made by him some time ago, when he could not have supposed that on the last day of the Session any such Motion as this could come on. His noble Friend further authorized him to state, that before leaving town, his attention had been called to this matter, in the House, by the hon. Member for Norwich, and that the case of the Attorney and Solicitor General, in respect of Government business, had not been unforeseen by him in framing his Resolution. What they did in the House of Commons, in Government matters, was part of their official duty, and their professional fees were their necessary official remuneration. Their conduct in Government cases, therefore, was no more open to exception than that of a Minister of the Crown who is paid by salary. Having thus expressed the views of his noble Friend, whose character and position gave him such great weight in this House, he (Mr. Warren) begged briefly to explain his own, by saying that they were in entire accordance with those of his noble Friend in framing his Resolution, in the policy of which he had concurred from the first. That Resolution had received, in a very decisive manner, the approbation of the House, after ample discussion, having passed by a majority of 210 against 27, and ought not lightly to be disturbed. If he (Mr. Warren) had considered that it involved any discredit or dishonour in respect of the great profession to which he had the honour to belong, he would on no account have supported it, but it did no such thing. He appealed to many of those then present to recollect how very guarded and courteous his noble Friend had been in advocating his Resolution, showing that nice regard for the feelings of the members of a powerful and honourable profession which characterized all that he (Lord Hotham) said and did, to all persons, whether in or out of the House. He did not even glance at any individual, or any particular transaction, but expressed what was, and ought to be, the opinion of the House on a matter of great moment to 2350 its own privileges and character before the country. He (Mr. Warren) said emphatically, that to do what that Resolution denounced, was contrary to the usage, and derogatory to the dignity of that House; and it was a Resolution perfectly intelligible as it stood, though its terms were certainly very comprehensive. Such a case as that now before the House however, was clearly not within the spirit of the Resolution, and he urged the Government to pause before they unsettled and reopened a Resolution which had so unequivocally received the fiat of the House, and which related to a matter of so much difficulty and delicacy.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he regretted that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Schneider) had been prevented from calling their attention at an earlier period of the Session to the terms of the Resolution. That Resolution was one of very great importance, not so much as affecting the interests of members of the bar who were also Members of that House, but as affecting in an important degree the independence of every Member of Parliament and the interests of every subject in the realm. If the Resolution had gone no further than absolutely to prohibit any Member of the House from receiving pecuniary or other rewards in respect of the discharge of his duties in that House, no one could have taken exception to it, for such a thing would not only be unconstitutional and illegal, but altogether unworthy and unbecoming any Member of Parliament; but the Resolution went much further than that. He had to express his grateful thanks to the hon. Member for Norwich, for having given him a private intimation of a report which he had heard, and which had been confirmed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford, that it was really believed by some persons that he (the Attorney General) had accepted a large sum—£500, he believed, had been named—from some Indian prince or gentleman, with a view to services to be performed in that House. He should not have thought it necessary to refer at all to so silly a story—which he need hardly say was absolutely untrue—were it not that it afforded him an opportunity of saying, that certainly on a recent occasion a very large sum of money was offered to him on behalf of one of those individuals who had lately sought justice, or what they thought justice, at the hands of the British Parliament. He took the opportunity of inform- 2351 ing the gentleman—who was not any prince of the Royal House of Oude or of Surat—that anything of the kind was so utterly inconsistent with our notions of duty and propriety, and so contrary to the constitution of this country, that any one who made such an offer would be exposed to some personal risk, and he believed that no such offer had been made to any Member of that House since. In answer to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Norwich, he begged to state that it was his intention at the very earliest period of next Session to direct the notice of the House to the Resolution carried by his noble Friend, and to the effect it had in respect to the members of the Bar who were also Members of that House. From what passed when the Resolution was under discussion, it seemed to be believed, chiefly by Members on the other side of the House, that the Resolution would prohibit Members not only from accepting remuneration for anything done in the discharge of their duty, in the House, but that it would also apply to any Member who gave his legal opinion on any case which might result ultimately in proceedings before either House of Parliament. He would not refer to the well-known and ancient practice by which the Attorney and Solicitor Generals were bound, in the discharge of their duty, to give their opinions upon all Bills submitted to this House, and upon all proceedings taken out of this House in which the rights of the Crown were in any way concerned. If that practice were departed from the Crown would be left without the assistance which had always been deemed necessary for the protection of its interests; but without referring now to this question, it was perfectly obvious, and on a future occasion he should be able to satisfy the House, that if the noble Lord's Resolution was made applicable to the case of a counsel who, being consulted by an individual from India or elsewhere, and recommending an appeal to Parliament, was afterwards precluded from taking part in any discussion on the subject, the necessary and inevitable effect would be to prevent a person who had suffered wrongs in any of our Colonies from consulting the most eminent counsel (who were generally Members of this House) lest upon the opinion given, a resort to Parliament should ultimately be found necessary, and be should then be deprived of their advocacy. If a barrister had given his opinion professionally that the case submitted to him was a just and 2352 righteous one, upon what ground should he be prevented from advocating it in this House? The question involved large and important considerations, and his conviction was, that the Resolution was entirely superfluous and unnecessary, inasmuch as he scarcely believed there existed a member of the Bar—whether of England, Scotland, or Ireland—who had, within our own times, received any description of remuneration in any shape or way of which the most honourable, the most fastidious man in the Queen's dominions could complain. Entertaining this conviction, he would say no more than that, while on the one hand he should be among the first to stand forward and secure, if it were necessary, the dignity and the purity of the Bar from reproach or suspicion, he should certainly feel it his duty at an earlier period next Session to bring the whole question under the consideration of the House, and he was sure the members of the profession would be perfectly content with the decision at which the House might then arrive.

§ MR. INGHAM
said, he was glad to hear that there would be some general discussion upon the subject embraced in the noble Lord's Resolution. There was no case within his knowledge, nor did he believe that any existed, in which any member of the Bar, after giving his advice on a case submitted to him professionally, had received pecuniary compensation for his advocacy in Parliament; and if the Resolution which had been come to were carried out as strictly as it was said it might be, the result would be to deprive this House of the valuable information which its legal Members were able to bring to bear upon subjects which might come before it.