HC Deb 30 June 1836 vol 34 cc1107-17
Sir John Hanmer

was surprised at the manner in which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had thought proper to view the motion he was about to submit; for, he would venture to say, that there can be no subject more worthy of deliberation, of more importance to the sacred interests that House represented, and ought to guard, nor which, when it was fairly laid open, would more deeply excite the interest and attention of the whole country. There was no circumstance which could cause him deeper regret than that this duty had not fallen upon one more accustomed to take a lead in public affairs than himself,—and whose talents would command greater attention; and the more so, as he feared that his motives might be open to some degree of misapprehension, although he totally disclaimed being actuated by any party motives. He appealed to all sides of the House. He put the matter to issue upon plain, straightforward, and constitutional views; and if anything fell from him which should appear of a personal or invidious nature, it must be attributed rather to his mode of delivery than to the purpose of his mind. He hoped he should act with all that courtesy and forbearance which was due from one Member of the House to another, but at the same time consistently with his firm determination of doing all in his power to put a stop to a practice which be considered to be derogatory to the character, and fatal to the independence of the House of Commons. On a former occasion, when, on the spur of the moment he brought this question forward, his observations were met by an allegation, that other Members of Parliament had acted as colonial agents here, and that there was even a decision of a Committee of the House in favour of retaining the post. The hon. Member for Brid port quoted these cases in a tone of such grave authority, that these precedents, and more especially the decision of the Committee, though it failed to make the same impression on him, which it appeared to produce upon other Members of the House, induced him to turn his attention to the point. He must first observe, that there was a great difference between the functions which Mr. Huskisson, and s me other gentlemen exercised on behalf of the colonies, and those which the hon. and learned Member discharged; but when the decision of a Committee was quoted, he did think that the House, which was so punctilious in all matters that affected its privileges, must have at least appointed a Committee of Privileges to take the whole case of agency into consideration. But what was the fact? The decision referred to was merely that of a common Election Committee. The return of Mr. Huskisson for Liskeard was petitioned against, on the ground that Mr. Huskisson was a placeman and pensioner under the Crown. The case proved was, that he was an agent for the colony of Ceylon; and, as that did not make him either placeman or pensioner under the Crown, the Election Committee came to a decision which which was in his favour. This point, therefore, was a mere evasion, and not a decision of the case of the hon. and learned Member. Mr. Huskisson was an agent, and the hon. and learned Member was an agent; there was a river at Monmouth, and a river at Macedon. He admitted that up to the year 1822, there might have existed some suspicion with regard to these colonial agents, but he could explain the seeming negligence which prevailed in Parliament on this score, by stating that it was because those agents did not and could not interfere in measures that came before Parliament that they were suffered to hold their offices, and he could prove that this was the opinion entertained by those whom they represented, for when Mr. G. Hibbert retired from that House, he being agent for Jamaica, he wrote thither stating that fact, and so far were his clients from desiring that their agent should be a Member of Parliament, that they said, "We had much rather that you should be out of the House." He must further remind the hon. and learned Member, that it would not be sufficient to cast his suspicion on Mr. Huskisson; he must be prepared with his proofs that Mr. Huskisson had done something which was not constitutional, and if he proved that, what would he gain? He would merely prove that other gentlemen besides himself had infringed the constitutional law of Parliament by taking salaries for the furtherance of matters depending before Parliament. He quoted the words of the resolution of 1796. To come now to the facts of this particular case; the House of Assembly of Lower Canada last spring adopted certain resolutions, and the hon. and learned Member, to whom a salary had been voted by that body, made a motion in the Imperial Parliament on the 16th of May, in accordance with those resolutions, to effect an organic change in a branch of the Canadian Legislature. Now he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he meant to say that he was accredited to that House, not from Bath, but Canada? He had heard it said by some hon. Members, not only that there was no danger in a Member of Parliament holding this office, but that, as far as Canada was concerned, whatever might be the merits of the abstract question, the rule ought not to apply. Now, he did not speak of small interests. The House remembered the case of Malta. What if the statement of grievances was accompanied by a retaining fee? Mr. Burge, however, who was the agent for Jamaica, had had no seat in the House for some years past, and yet what important questions were discussed in 1833, when he was not a Member of the House, relating to the slave question and compensation. They would seem, if ever such a claim could be countenanced, to have a right to have a Member of that House as their agent, in order to put their case in the most favourable point of view, but they did not retain one. They were content with the common constitutional practice. Did the many millions of our Mohammedan subjects employ an agent? They did so once, but the House should remember, that that was one of the strongest arguments for the Reform Bill. Did they remember the Nabob of Arcot, and the Rajah who had twenty votes in the House. The hon. Member was identified by opinion and by salary with a particular party in Canada, and could not take a wise and general view of the whole interests of the country. Sir Francis Head, in proroguing the Legislature of Canada, had alluded to the difficulty he had to contend with in attempting to conciliate parties. Of the impartial conduct pursued by Sir F. Head the House had heard. Suppose some individual had come to him, and had offered him a salary on condition of advocating the interests of a particular party, what would have been the public opinion of that officer if the news arrived of his acceptance of the offer? But he appealed not to precedent or example; he appealed to the lex scripta and to common sense. There was a regulation on the journals of the House, that the acceptance by any Member of Parliament of any fee, reward, or valuable consideration, for the performance of his duty in Parliament, was a high crime and misdemeanour. But he did not appeal to precedent; this case would become a precedent; and, if the House did not take care, it would have Members from every colony sitting in that House, and paid for advocating its peculiar interests. If this stream of irregularity ran on, it would bear down the bulwarks which the jealous care of the Constitution had raised. If the question were doubtful, it would not be difficult to decide on which side the scale should preponderate. On the one side was sophistry, on the other truth. He had brought the subject forward with a view of upholding the independence and purity of Parliament, and he respectfully submitted the resolution he proposed, "That it is contrary to the independence, a breach of the privileges, and derogatory to the character of the House of Commons, for any of its members to become the paid advocate in Parliament, for the conduct there of either public or private affairs of any portion of His Majesty's subjects."

Mr. Roebuck

commenced by observing, that the resolution which the hon. Baronet had evidently taken much time to word, so that it might affect his (Mr. Roebuck's) case alone, unfortunately struck at many of his own friends. It was in consequence of the evidence given by some witnesses before the Committee on Canadian Affairs, which sat in 1827-28, that it was determined by the House of Assembly of that colony to retain an agent in Great Britain. For that office he had the good fortune to be selected; and he now heard it, for the first time, asserted, that the duties it imposed were incompatible with the situation he held as a Member of that House. The hon. Baronet had referred to the case of Mr. Burke, in 177O, as supporting his resolution, but it singularly enough happened, that it was upon the authority of that very case he founded his right to unite the duties of a colonial agent with those of a Member of Parliament. The only difference between Mr. Burke's case and his case was in the circumstance of the one being the agent for the colonies of New York (he was speaking of the year 1770, when New York was a British colony), and the other of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada. In the case of Mr. Huskisson he had another, and in some respects a stronger, authority in his favour. It was an undoubted fact, that the decision of Election Committees determined the law of Parliament, as to who were or who were not disqualified to sit in that House as Members; Mr. Huskisson, before his election, acted as the agent for the Island of Ceylon, and upon his being returned to Parliament he was petitioned against on the ground, among others, of disqualification by reason of his holding the office of paid agent for a British colony, whereby he was alleged to come within the provisions of the 6th of Anne, chap. 7, sec. 25. At the period in question appointments of this kind were new, and therefore the decision of the Committee was anxiously watched for and narrowly scrutinised. It was in favour of Mr. Huskisson. Now, between this case and his there was an essential point of difference; Mr. Huskisson was appointed by the Government of the Island of Ceylon— he was but the agent of the House of Assembly of Canada. He was not the agent for the colony, nor did he ever represent both the Legislative Assemblies of the colony. The two Houses disagreed as to who should be appointed, and the result was, that the House of Assembly selected him, and the Legislative Council the hon. Member for Taunton. As to the duties attached to the situation, he could assure the House they were alike important and laborious; in fact, they occupied nearly the whole of his time. He was required continually to watch the whole proceedings of the colonies, and of that House on colonial matters; and he was frequently required to give attendance at the Colonial-office—a branch of duty in which much valuable time was consumed. But he; wished to know what was the difference between his case and that of the Governor of the Bank of England, or of a Bank or East-India Director? The hon. Baronet's resolution, if it affected him, must affect other hon. Members holding such offices. What was the difference between the two situations? Surely the Governor of the Bank of England, or a Bank or East-India Director, came into that House with as much prepossession in favour of particular opinions or particular doctrines on subjects relating to those Corporations, as he could be prepossessed on a Canadian question. If there was any difference between the two cases, it consisted in this, that as his connexion with Canada was a matter open, clear, and before the whole world, there was no danger likely to arise from his advocacy or vote on any particular question; while in other instances Members voted and advocated measures in which the public supposed them uninterested, but upon the result of which, in all probability, they had a heavy stake depending. How was it in respect of those two great questions—the renewal of the Bank and East-India Charters? Why hundreds of Members, who were far more beneficially interested in the result of those questions than he could be in the result of any question relating to the colonies, voted upon them. He contended, then, that if the proposed resolution was to be put in force, it would sweep from the House one-half of its Members. But he had even a still stronger view of the case to put to the House. If any set of persons had a right to complain of a Representative undertaking to manage the affairs of a colony, who above all others had it? Surely they were the constituency of that person. Now he wanted to know if his constituency had ever complained of his having been chosen the agent of the House of Assembly of Canada? He wished to know, moreover, if it was likely his constituents, had they disapproved of his acting as agent for Canada, would have paid all his election expenses? If his constituents thought his acceptance of the agency was a breach of trust, they knew well that, on their representing that opinion to him, he would have immediately resigned the trust they had confided to him. But, so far from this being the case, his constituents thought it a high honour to have their Representative so distinguished by a body of their fellow-subjects, and they even went so far as to express an opinion that, for his services to them, as well as for his services as agent for Canada, he ought to be remunerated, and he was quite of this opinion. He held it that the business of the people would never be well discharged till each Member received a salary for his services. The present was not, however, the time to discuss that question. He thanked the House for the attention he had received, and reminding them that Mr. Burge, Mr. Marriot and Mr. Holmes, during the time they were Members of that House, acted as agents for colonies, he would leave the case in their hands. As far as Parliament was concerned, the authorities were with him—as far as law was concerned, he was borne out—and as far as the question depended upon common sense, he left it to the House to judge.

Mr. Harvey

could not help congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Bath upon his being able to support his case with reference to those of Governors and Directors—between whose positions and his he was free to say there was a strong analogy. He must, however, observe that it would give him much satisfaction to hear from the father of Parliamentary law, who took so prominent a part in the discussion upon his case some years ago, in what consisted the difference between it and that before the House. The fact was, he (Mr. Harvey) was the victim of the weakness of pretended friends, and the absence of those great names which the hon. and learned Member for Bath brought to his protection. Injustice, however, was not on this account the less pointed or the less painful; and unfortunately, the longer he lived, the more convinced he became of the persecution to which he had been subjected. From the first hour of his political existence he had been the victim of party and of prejudice, and so he found to the last hour of his life he should continue. Through the rancour of party he had lost 3,000l. a-year, though, if he had availed himself of the subterfuges others had recourse to, he might still have continued in its receipt. From the Tuesday night upon which it was decided by that House that his position as a Member incapacitated him from acting as a Parliamentary agent, up to that hour, he had not, directly, or indirectly, received the tithe of a farthing. Had others been as conscientious? Was there, or was there not, hypocrisy in a great deal of the political and moral feeling of which others so loudly boasted? He considered himself a wronged man, and how did he prove it? Why thus, for one instance. In the newspapers of that morning he saw an advertisement of a railway company, and appended to that advertisement, under the title of standing counsel, was the name of an hon. and learned Member of that House. Now what did the term "standing counsel" mean? It meant a man who stood, with both hands open, ready to receive a bribe on all occasions. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Bath was perfectly justified in receiving payment for his services as Canadian agent, and he had no doubt he gave an equivalent for it; but he could not help thinking it was the extreme of injustice and most disgusting hypocrisy to visit him with punishment, and for the same offence to let off the hon. and learned Member, merely because he had been able to rake some few precedents in his favour. They heard much in that House of vested rights and vested interests, but the vested interests of which they had last evening to consider were of a somewhat singular nature. They had allotted, on the ground of vested rights, an income of more than 900l. a-year to the doorkeepers of the House, and for what duty? Why, for merely letting in and out of the House persons who had not the same amount of income themselves. It was quite clear, as the hon. and learned Member for Bath had observed, as long as it was known that a Member of that House was a Parliamentary agent, his being so could be productive of no mischief, except perhaps that of creating an influence against the measure he supported. Why a law had been passed to oppress one particular description of Parliamentary agents, he knew not: but if the present motion was rejected, and he hoped it would be so unanimously, he should think it a tacit admission on the part of the House of a disposition to return to a sense of justice on the subject.

Mr. Scarlett

said, that though the instances adduced were very strong, and almost sufficient to avert the judgment of the House, still he thought that the custom of having paid agents in the House of Commons, though shown to be long continued and extensively practised, was one better at once broken through than any longer observed. The House had always a jealousy of its Members being employed to do any business within it, and it could not be expected that in the present instance it would wave that well grounded feeling. If it did, of what use were the various statutes which still existed in full force against hon. Members receiving payment for their services from any interested parties? The principle at issue was a very important one. If it were admitted by the House any foreign potentate or Power, even though it was at war with England, might have its paid agent in the House, who would thus be enabled to transact its business with impunity, and with important advantage; and also to justify the position in which he was placed by a reference to it. In his opinion, no colony which had a Legislature of its own should be suffered to have a paid agent in Parliament. The King's Ministers were the true and proper representatives of the interests of such a colony. He should, therefore, willingly support the motion.

Mr. Lahouchere

said, it was undoubtedly true that some years ago he had received a communication informing him that the Assembly of Lower Canada had done him the honour to appoint him their agent; but it was also true that he had written in answer, that although he should always be happy to be of any service to the colony, he must decline being their appointed agent. In making that statement, how- ever, he hoped not to be understood as casting the slightest imputation on the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He could well conceive that that hon. Gentleman, connected as he was with the colony by the ties that bound him to it, might feel it his duty to become its agent, for the purpose of obtaining for it what he thought was justice. He for one, respected the hon. and learned Gentleman for not shrinking from his connexion with the colony. But he felt his own case to be quite a different one; and had, therefore, done what he considered it to be his duty to do. He would also frankly confess, that although he thought it very important that every colony should be represented in this country by an accredited agent, he did not think it was desirable that that agent should be in Parliament. The tendency of such a practice was to connect any differences which might arise between the colonies and Government with politics, and to involve the colonies in party questions with which they had nothing to do. He knew, however, that a contrary usage had obtained among many of the greatest ornaments of which that House could boast; and he especially remembered having had a conversation on the subject with Sir James Mackintosh, who told him that he should be perfectly disposed to accept the appointment of agent for Canada.

Mr. Hume

could not concur in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He thought that every colony ought to have an accredited agent in Parliament.

Lord John Russell

had a preliminary objection to the form of the resolution. As to the general question discussed by the hon. Member who moved it, with respect to paid agents for the colonies sitting in this House, he admitted that there were inconveniences attending the practice, though it had the authority of such men as Mr. Burke, Mr. Huskisson, and Sir James Mackintosh. Again, as a general proposition, he was not disposed to agree to it, on a resolution. If any disqualification were proposed which had not been created by the existing law, it should be by some new law, it should be by a Bill and not by a resolution. It was competent to the hon. Member to introduce a Bill for the purpose; and on this ground he opposed the Resolution. Besides, the Resolution was so worded, that he did not wonder that the hon. and learned Member for Bath should have considered that his Majesty's Ministers were included in it. On those points, therefore—first, that he did not desire to see any change; in the second place, that he should not wish to make any change, if it were desirable, by a Resolution of the House, but by a Bill, he objected to the Resolution, and would take the liberty of moving the previous question.

Sir John Hanmer

had no object in bringing forward the Resolution, but to secure the character which the House should maintain for dignity and independence. The House, therefore, might dispose of the Resolution as it pleased he had done his duty in submitting the Resolution, and he should not be consulting his own feeling, if he were to withdraw it. He was sorry to trespass on the time of hon. Members, but he must take the sense of the House on the Resolution.

The House divided on the question, that the original question be put:—Ayes 67; Noes 178:—Majority 111.

List of the AYES.
Angerstein, J. Lefroy, A.
Archdall, M. Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Bewes, T. Longfield, R.
Blackburne, I. Lowther, hon. Col.
Blackstone, W. S. Lygon, hon. Col.
Browurigg, S. Maclean, D.
Burrell, Sir C. Manners, Lord C. S.
Chandos, Marq. f Martin, J.
Chaplin, Colonel Mosley, Sir O.
Chichester, A. Norreys, Lord
Collier, J. Palmer, G.
Dick, Q. Penruddock, J. H.
Dillwyn, L. W, Perceval, Colonel
Dowdeswell, W. Plumptre, J. P.
Dunbar, G. Plunket, hon. R. E.
Duncombe, hon. W. Pollen, Sir J. W.
Eaton, R. J. Pollington, Lord
Elley, Sir J. Praed, J. B.
Estcourt, T. Price, S. G.
Forbes, W. Rickford, W.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Sheppard, T.
Gore, O. Sibthorp, Colonel
Gresley, Sir R. Somerset, Lord E,
Grimstone, hon. E. H. Spry, Sir S. T.
Hale, R. B. Stanley, E.
Halse, J. Thompson, Ald,
Hamilton, G. A. Trench, Sir F.
Hardy, J. Trevor, hon. A.
Hawkes, T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Henniker, Lord Vere, Sir C. B.
Hotham, Lord Williams, T. P.
Hoy, J. B. Young, J.
Jones, W. TELLERS.
Irton, S. Hanmer, Sir J.
Knightley, Sir C. Scarlett, hon. R.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Lord French, F.
Aglionby, H. A. Gaskell, D.
Alston, R. Gillon, W. D.
Anson, Colonel Gladstone, T.
Baines, E. Gordon, R.
Baldwin, Dr. Goulburn, Sergeant
Ball, N. Gratton, H.
Baring, F. T. Grimston, Lord
Baring, T. Gully, J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hall, B.
Bentinck, Lord W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Berkeley, hon. C. Handley, H.
Bernal, R. Harland, W. C.
Bish, T. Harvey, D. W.
Blake, M. J. Hastie, A.
Boldero, H. G. Hawkins. J. H.
Bowring, Dr. Hay. Sir A. L.
Brady, D. C. Heathcote, J.
Bridgeman, H. Hector, C. J.
Brodie, W. B. Heneage, F.
Brotherton, J. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir
Browne, R. D. J.
Bruce, Lord E. Hogg, J. W.
Buller, C. Horsman, E.
Bulwer, H. L. Howard, R.
Bulwer, E. L. Howard, hon. E.
Burton, H. Howard, P. H.
Byng, rt. hon. G. Humphery, J.
Cave, R. O. Jermyn, Lord
Cavendish, hon. C. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Law, hon. C. E.
Chalmers, P. Leader, J. T.
Chetwynd, Captain Lefevre, C. S.
Clay, W. Lemon, Sir C.
Clayton, Sir W. Lennox, Lord G.
Clerk, Sir G. Lennox, Lord A.
Clive, E. B. Lister, E. C.
Codrington, Admiral Lynch, A. H.
Colborne, N. W. R. Macnamara, Major
Cookes, T. H. Marjoribanks, S.
Crawford, W. S. Marsland, H.
Curties, H. B. Methuen, P.
Curties, E. B. Morpeth, Lord
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. Mostyn, hon. E.
C. T. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Donkin, Sir R. O'Brien, W. S.
Duncombe, T. O'Connell, D.
Duncombe, hon. A. O'Connell, M, J.
Dundas, hon. T. O'Connell, M.
Ebrington, Lord Oliphant, L.
Egerton, Lord F. Oswald, J.
Elphinstone, H. Paget, F.
Etwall, R. Palmer, General
Evans, G. Palmer, R.
Ewart, W. Parker, J.
Fazakerley, J. N. Parrott, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Pease, J.
Ferguson, C. Pechell, Captain
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Pendarves, E. W. W,
Fitzgibbon, hon. Col. Phillips, M.
Fitzsimon, C. Phillipps, C. M.
Fitzsimon, N. Pinney, W.
Folkes, Sir W. Ponsonby, hon. W.
Forster, C, S. Potter, R.
Fort, J. Poulter, J. S.
Poyntz, W. S. Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.
Price, Sir R. Thompson, P. B.
Pusey, P. Thompson, Colonel
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Thornely, T.
Richards, R. Tooke, W.
Rippon, C. Trelawney, Sir W.
Robinson, G. R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Roche, W. Tulk, C. A.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Tynte, J. K.
Rundle, J. Villiers, C. P.
Rushbrooke, Col. Vivian, J. H.
Russell, Lord J. Wakley, T.
Russell, Lord Wallace, R.
Ruthven, E. Walpole, Lord
Sandon, Lord Warburton, H.
Sandford, E. A. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Scholefield, J. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Scott, Sir E. D. Wilde, Sergeant
Seymour, Lord Williamson, Sir H.
Sharpe, General Woulfe, Sergeant
Sheil, R. L. Wrightson, W. B.
Stanley, E. Wyndhrm, W.
Stewart, R. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Strickland, Sir G. Wyse, T.
Talbot, C. R. M. TELLERS.
Talbot, J. H. Hume, J.
Talfourd, Sergeant Smith, R. V.

Original Resolution not put.