HC Deb 13 July 1858 vol 151 cc1430-1

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Debate resumed.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he had only one or two remarks to make. There were three clauses objected to in this Bill. The first was that which increased the retiring alllowances of aged barristers; so that there was no great objection. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Oh, yes, there is.] Well, he did not believe the objection was a very strong one. The second, at all events, was more strongly opposed—that which gave the Crown the power of removing an assistant barrister for misconduct as well as for infirmity. The Government proposed to give up the removal for misconduct altogether, and to confine the infirmity to that which was proved before the Irish Privy Council. As to the third clause which concerned the removal of barristers from one district to another, the Government were prepared to say that they would not remove from one class to another; or if that would not satisfy the objectors they would withdraw the clause altogether. With these concessions, as the Bill was a valuable one, he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time now, and take the discussion on going into Committee.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he did not think the Bill a valuable one at all. He saw no reason why assistant barristers should have any retiring allowance. These barristers did not discontinue their private practice. If they did, he would admit that they had a claim for retiring pensions.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that the retiring pensions proposed for the assistant barristers was smaller than those now given to the sheriffs in Scotland and the County Court Judges in Scotland. As these gentlemen were now irremovable, if they had no retiring pension they would not retire, although they might be incapable of sitting; and the result would be that the public business would not be done.

MR. COGAN

said, he had so decided an objection to the principle of the Bill that he must move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that he would consent to postpone the second reading to Thursday.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.