§ MR. BENNI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any further information as to the nature of the payments made by Messrs. Bircham & Co., Parliamentary agents, by way of commission to the late town clerk of Holborn; and whether he is aware that part of this commission has, since the trial, been refunded to the borough council.
† See page 57.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FTNLAY, Inverness Burghs)My right hon. friend has asked mo to answer this Question. I understand that the facts are as follows: Mr. Jones was solicitor to the Holborn Borough Council, and employed Messrs. Bircham as Parliamentary agents upon. What are known as "agency terms," that is, that the fees should be divided between the solicitor and the agents. Messrs. Bircham accordingly paid Jones as his share of the fees which they had received two cheques; one for £116 13s. in respect of work up to the end of 1903, and the other for £94 14s. for work up to the end of 1904. The first of these cheques was cashed by Jones, but the cheque for £94 14s. was found uncashed among his papers by the borough council after his defalcations had come to light. The council claimed that they were entitled to it, and Messrs. Bircham paid to them the amount on receiving their indemnity against other claims by Jones or his representatives. It now appears that Jones, by the terms of his engagement with the council, was bound to hand over to them all fees received by him during his tenure of office, but Messrs. Bircham were not aware of this arrangement. Jones did not account for these fees, and retained for his own use the amount of the cheque cashed by him for £116 13s., concealing the fact that he had received it. Work upon agency terms is well known, and payments made in respect of it cannot be correctly described as "commission." Work upon such terms is very common as between solicitors, and has prevailed extensively as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors. One of the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses in 1876 was that such division of fees as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors should be prohibited. Debates took place in both Houses upon this question on July 28th and August 2nd, 1876. There was then, and always has been, a great division of opinion on this subject, and no action was taken on the Report of 1876. The question of the propriety of such agency terms in the case of Parliamentary agents is now under the consideration of the authorities of both Houses.
§ MR. BENNMay I ask whether the Holborn Borough Council were aware of these payments from Messrs. Bircham to Jones?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYI suppose the town council knew nothing of the fact; but for eighteen years similar arrangements as to agency terms had existed. I have just said that these payments were concealed by Jones from the council.
§ MR. BENNJones had not been town clerk for eighteen years; and when he was appointed quite a different set of circumstances arose, of which Messrs. Bircham were fully aware.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYThe difference is not of the slightest importance. Before the arrangements with the borough council, Jones was clerk for the St. Giles's Board, and then he employed Messrs. Bircham. When the St. Giles's Board ceased to exist, Jones became town clerk of the Holborn Borough Council, and still employed Messrs. Bircham on the same terms.
§ MR. BENNHas the hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to placing on the Table of the House the cross-examination of Messrs. Bircham which took place at this inquiry?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYIt is open to any hon. Member to look at it.