The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY; OCTOBER 23.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 132, 23 October 1877, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY; OCTOBER 23.

The members of the House of Representatives have been greatly exercised by a breach of privilege committed by one of their number, which they have visited by adjudging the offender guilty of contempt, and fining him £50. The particulars of this case are in this wise : Mr Lusk, one of the members for Auckland, Avas employed by the. Corporation of that city to draft a certain Bill, and to use his influence to" get it through Parliament* For these services Mr Lusk (who is a lawyer), on Ms return from the session, received £50. On this matter being brought before the House, it was referred.-to the Committee on Privilege, and on Mr Fox, the Chairman of that Committee bringing up the report, he moved the following resolution : " That the conduct of Mr Lusk, a mem"ber of this House, in receiving fees " for drafting a Bill and promoting busi- " nessin Parliament is contrary to Par- " liamentary usage, aiul derogatory to '? the "dignity of this House, and that " Mr Lusk be required to pay the sum "of £50 so received by him to Mr "Speaker, in order that it may be re"funded by him to the City Council of " Auckland." A debate of a very acrimonious character ensued. Mr. Stout, Mr. Rees, and others, declared that Mr. Lusk hail been judged in party spite ; this, however, was denied , by Mr, Fox and Mr.' Sheehan, who contended that, whilst not desiring to impute "corrupt motives to Mr. Lusk, it was necessary that, the House should mark its sense of the affront that had been offered to its dignity. Mr Rolleston expressed an opinion that those- who gave the bribe were equally culpable with him who took it, and, because the money should not be returned to the City Council of Auckland, he moved as an amendment, " That Mr. Lusk should be fined £50," which was ultimately agreed to.

There can be nothing wrong in a person in his private capacity receiving payment for services rendered, but when that person is in the position of a member of the .Legislature, and-.the receipt of such money'may: cast, upon him ,the shadow of the shade,of suspicion that his conduct as a member of such Legislature has been influenced by the money l he has received, then the case assumes a most serious aspect, as the purity of motive is impugned, and what affects the purity of motive, of one member, affects the whole Parliamentary body. It is in this light that, doubtless, the House looked upon Mr. Lusk's conduct, and hence the decision arrived at, not for the purpose of punishing Mr. Lusk, but. to resenfr the injury that had been offered to its dignity and honour. It is exactly upon this principle, that the law punishes the wrong-doer.■- for the injury to society, or the Judge of a Court would visit with severity an officer of his Court, who was found to have re-' ceived a. fee from a suitor for services rendered in, promoting his interests. Whilst acquitting Mx.' Lusk &f having

been iii'fiinnced by corrupt motives, we cannot help saying that he has been guilty of grievous indiscretion. "Even if the standing orders had not prohibited, the receipt of a fee for services given in Parliament, that ; innate knowledge of. right and wrong which every man has within himself, ought to have told him that no member of Parliament- should receive money from ariy man or body of men, in order to further their views. The House has done quite.right"in dealiitg with.Mr:. Lusk, but in doing so, justice lias been tempered'with mefey, for it was in the power of the House to have expelled the offender.