ALLEGED DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. LUSK, M.H.R.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5157, 2 October 1877, Page 2

ALLEGED DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. LUSK, M.H.R.

Mr. Macfarlane has written a letter 'to Mr, Lusk, stating that he intended to bring before the House the fact of Mr. Lusk having received £SO from the Corporation of Auckland City for services rendered in connection with the Corporation Bill. ' Auckland, Sept. 12,1877. Memo.—To expenses at Wellington during session 1876, re Municipal Acts ; Mr. Stevenson ... £252 13 0 Mr. Lusk 60 0 d £302 13 0 From “ May’s Parliamentary Practice,” the following extracts are taken : On 2nd May 1695, it was resolved, —“ That the offer of any money or other advantage to any member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, and tends to the subversion of the English Constitution.” And in the spirit of this resolution the offer of a bribe in order to influence a member in the proceedings of the House, has been treated as a breach of privilege, being an insult not only to the member himself but also the House. Ou the ISth March,’ 1694-5, Mr. Bird was reprimandedforofferiugabribetoMr.Musgrave, a member and gentleman of the long robe, in the form of a guinea fee, for preparing a petition to the House. So also the acceptance of a bribe by a member has ever been by the law of Parliament a grave offence, which has been visited with the severest punishment. In 1677, Mr. J. Ashburuham was expelled for receiving £SOO from the French nurchauts for business done in the House, In 1684, Sir John Trevor was declared guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor in having, while Speaker of the House, received a gratuity of a thousand guineas from the City of Loudon, after passing the Orphans Bill, and was expelled. In 1695, Mr. Guy, Secretary to the Treasury, was committed to the Tower on taking a bribe of a hundred guineas ; and the same year Mr. Hungerford was expelled, as guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, in securing twenty guineas for his pains and services as chairman of the Committee ou the Orphans Bill. Nor has the law of Parliament been confined to repression of direct pecuniary corruption to guard against indirect influences, it has further restrained the acceptance of fees by its members for professional services connected with proceedings in Parliament, and on the 20th June, 1853, the House of Commons resolved,—“ That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its members should bring forward, promote, or advocate in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.” Tlie last quoted resolution of the House of Commons was embodied in the standing orders of the House of .Representatives, and appears in these as No. 384,