578
over two months and a sum of $500:00 not $300:00 as
alleged, was paid to me as an honorarium not so much for
my services, (because such a figure would be quite
inadequate to compensate me for my time and labour) but
rather as a small contribution to my office expenses.
At first I was most unwilling to undertake such an
onerous task for such a small fee. But taking in
consideration the earnest appeals and repeated requests
of my Chinese fellow citizens and also having regard to
their plea that no one else in this Colony is sufficiently
qualified like me to give them the assistance they so
much desired, and also by reason of my past practice of
volunteering my services for their welfare, I was loath
not to accede to their urgent requests in this instance,
and the Rule in May's Parliamentary Practice to which I
have been referred never once entered my mind as being
applicable to a case of this sort. In the 10th Edition of May's Parlimentary Practice Page 82, the following
passages occur.
"Nor has the Law of Parliament been confined to
To "the repression of direct pecuniary corruption. "guard against indirect influence, it has further "restrained the acceptance of fees by its members, "for professional services connected with any proceed "-ing or measure in Parliament.
"A member is accordingly incapable of practising
By "as Counsel before the house, or any committee. "resolution, 26th February 1830, members of the "House of Commons are prohibited from engaging, "either by themselves or by a partner, in the manage- "ment of private bills, before this or the other "House of Parliament, for pecuniary reward.
Nor is
"it consistent with parliamentary or professional "usage for a member to advise, as Counsel, upon any "private bill, or other proceeding in Parliament".
(6)
A
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.