LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 5 June 1873)

§ MR. GORDON
hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would state the understanding on which he wished the discussion to proceed, and particularly, whether he proposed that the rights of the existing corporations should be destroyed altogether, or whether the corporations which at present had the power of passing practitioners should have their powers continued?

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, there was one point he wished to call attention to. The Bill proposed to open up all the Law Courts to qualified practitioners, but there was one privilege which was not interfered with—no person could issue summonses or take out processes in connection with the Superior Courts, without obtaining the signature of the Writer to the Signet. He believed, although it was that on which the name of the Society was founded, the privilege was a small one, and one from the continuance of which no advantage could be expected. Indeed, the Law Commissioners, as would be remembered, recommended that it should be done away with. He proposed, therefore, to move the addition of a Proviso to that effect.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, there was another point on which he wished to get 542 information. The clause provided that no one should practise in the Law Courts except those qualified in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The qualification was a general one for all the Courts, and it undoubtedly seemed to be the proper system to have one door through which all solicitors should be admitted. In another portion of the Bill, however, other modes of admission were provided. He was informed that they were eight or nine in number, and he wished to know how matters really stood; because, on the first blush, it seemed to him that the exceptions were not reasonable ones. In order to elicit an answer to his queries, he would move the omission of the first part of the clause.
Amendment moved to leave out "From and after the passing of this Act no person shall be admitted as a Law Agent in Scotland except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) for giving him an opportunity of making such a statement as was desiderated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon). According to the system which had prevailed for a very long time in Scotland, solicitors were not admitted over the whole country by the decree of a Superior Court, but were admitted by the Courts in their several localities; and their privileges as regarded practice related solely to those Courts, whether superior or inferior, by which they were admitted. There was thus one body of solicitors before the Supreme Court in Edinburgh, another body of practitioners in Glasgow, a third in Perth, and so on. Another feature of the system was that in the various localities there existed Societies having exclusive privileges. In Edinburgh there were the two Societies of the Writers to the Signet and the Solicitors before the Supreme Court, and they had the exclusive privilege of practising before the Court of Session. In Glasgow, again, there was the Faculty of Procurators, with the exclusive privilege of practising before the Sheriff Courts of Lanark, and with the power of admitting practitioners. There were other bodies having corresponding powers in other parts of the country. The 543 general and main object of the present measure was to put an end to this system of partial admissions to practise before particular Courts, and to substitute a general admission by the Superior Court in Edinburgh for the whole country. Its second object was to terminate all existing monopolies, so that the right to practise would no longer depend on the will of local Societies, and these Societies would no longer have the right to say who was qualified. The 19th clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had referred, did not continue any of the monopolies in question. It proposed—and it was a proposition merely, for there was an Amendment on the Paper which might or might not be adopted—that the Court in Edinburgh should be allowed to accept a certificate of admission to any of the Societies referred to—they were nine in number—as equivalent to a certificate of qualification and fitness from examiners appointed under the Act, provided they were satisfied that the conditions of admission were such as to show a satisfactory qualification. It was proposed to empower the Court to accept certificates of examination by the Society of the Writers to the Signet as equivalent to an examination by their own examiners, if—and only if—the Court should be satisfied that the examination of the Society was sufficient to afford qualification and guarantee to practise.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
moved the insertion of words, the effect of which was to take away from the Writers to the Signet the exclusive privilege of signing writs and summonses.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he entirely approved of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr. The Lord Advocate had stated that the object of the Bill was to destroy all monopolies. He (Mr. M'Laren) agreed that it was desirable to effect that object, and this Amendment was to destroy a small monopoly which now existed.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. He admitted that a great deal might be said against Writers to the Signet enjoying the exclusive privilege of signing writs which passed the Signet, but that was not the proper occasion to deal with the subject. To do 544 it now, without its having been under the consideration of the body interested, would be a somewhat objectionable proceeding. He quite appreciated the views of his hon. and learned Friend, and he should be prepared to give them favourable consideration at a fitting period; but he did not think the present was the occasion. It was a sentimental grievance; and he believed there was no difficulty in getting the summons signed by a brother practitioner; but there was a feeling of sentiment in asking for a favour of this kind, and he should be glad to consider the matter at a future and more appropriate time.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, though it might be a sentimental grievance, the Lord Advocate had said nothing to show that it ought to be retained.

§ MR. MILLER
hoped the Amendment would be persisted on. If it was a sentimental grievance, it would be easier to redress than a real grievance.

§ MR. ORR EWING,
on the other hand, hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he felt the force of the argument, that he had not given Notice of his Amendment; but he hoped that some other opportunity would be given him of raising the question. He should withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD ELCHO
proposed as an Amendment, in page 2, line 25, after the word "Agent," to add the words, "or sheriff clerk." The object was to compensate the sheriff clerk when an alteration was made imposing new duties upon him.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that was not a matter to which he attached much importance, and he was inclined to give way to the feeling of the Committee. It was quite true that heretofore sheriff clerks had been permitted to receive apprentices; but he did not think it was a fitting training school for solicitors, who would have to practise in a Superior Court.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, the present proposal would work very great hardship and inconvenience to the sheriff clerks. They would be deprived of a source of emolument without any corresponding compensation. He therefore proposed that the present sheriff clerks should have the privilege allowed them.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, on the Report, he would bring up words to carry out the suggestion.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
moved as an Amendment, in page 3, line 11, after "Agents," to add as a separate paragraph— A person who either before or after the passing of this Act shall for three years have been in practice as a notary public, or shall for five years have been a clerk to and engaged under the superintendence of a notary public.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it applied to notaries public for all future time.