BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. (Hansard, 14 July 1847)

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
stated he had now to move the Clause of which he had given notice. The object of the clause was to declare that wherever the word barrister or attorney was used in the Bill, it should be taken to mean a barrister called to the bar either in England or Ireland; and the word attorney, in the same way, should mean attorney at law either for England or Ireland, The subject involved 320 in this clause was very fully discussed in the House of Lords when the Vice Chancellor's Bill was before it in 1841; and a clause was then added to the Bill, moved by Lord Campbell, in which it was declared that wherever the word barrister was used, not only in that particular Bill, but in every Act of Parliament passed up to that period, it should be held to mean a barrister equally of England or Ireland. That clause was supported by the most eminent of the law Lords. It was supported by Lord Cottenham, by Lord Lyndhurst, by Lord Brougham, and was supported also by the Duke of Wellington. The clause, of course, applied only to Acts passed previously; but since then several most important Acts had passed, especially the County Courts or Small Debts Act of last Session, to which the principle was equally applicable. A very important Select Committee had sat last Session on legal education, of which Committee he was a Member, and had examined several witnesses on the subject of an interchange of legal functionaries between the two countries; and, amongst other eminent men, they had examined Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell. Both those learned Lords recommended the principle of this clause, namely, that barristers of each country should be placed on precisely the same footing with respect to eligibility for office. He, under these circumstances, hoped the Government would not object to the clause he had described which he would conclude by proposing.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the clause proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. He objected to it as being contrary to the rules of the House, not coming within the preamble of the Bill; and he appealed to the Speaker on that point. He objected to it also as opening again the question which had been discussed last Session, and which the House had already on that occasion decided, namely, that the Irish barristers were not to be eligible for judicial offices in county or local courts in England.

MR. STUART
also objected to the clause. He was sorry he could not give it his concurrence, at least at present; it involved many important considerations. The clause went to render not only barristers, but attorneys eligible to offices in 321 England. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division; if he did, he should be obliged to vote against him.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that if the sense of the House was against him, he did not wish to give them the trouble of dividing; but he felt strongly on the subject. Perhaps, as there was some confusion in the House when he had taken the liberty of stating the reasons on account of which he had proposed the clause, he might be allowed to repeat that it was simply to carry up to the present time the operation of a clause which no one had objected to in 1841, and by which barristers in each country were respectively made eligible to appointments in the other. Since then, Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, and other eminent men, had declared themselves in favour of a complete assimilation in those respects between legal functionaries and the legal profession in England and Ireland. Lord Campbell had stated in evidence that Lord Wellesley was of opinion that it would tend very much to benefit the United Kingdom if there was one law for England and Ireland, and that there should be, in interchange, that English barristers should he appointed Irish Judges, and that Irish barristers should be appointed English Judges.