SECOND READING. (Hansard, 3 June 1875)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved that this Bill, which had come down from the House of Lords, should be now read the second time. He explained that in seeking to fill up the vacant post of Arbitrator, which vacancy had been occasioned by the deaths, in succession, of Lord West-bury and Lord Romilly, the Lord Chancellor was obliged by the existing Act to choose a gentleman who either was, or had been, a Judge, and that, as there were difficulties in complying with this condition, it was proposed by the present measure to make the qualification simply 15 years' standing at the Bar. It was intended, moreover, to provide for an appeal from the decisions of the Judge to the Full Court of Chancery, and also for bringing before the same Court points in regard to which the late Arbitrator, Lord Romilly, had differed from his predecessor, Lord Westbury. With respect to an Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Jackson), objecting to the measure being dealt with as a Private Bill, he explained that, under the Rules of the House of Lords, it had been found necessary so to treat it. He was prepared to accede to the proposal made in another Amendment of the same hon. and learned Member—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; five Members to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection.

§ MR. JACKSON
, under these circumstances, would not oppose the second reading.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
said, there was a strong objection on the part of many persons interested to any one under the status of a Judge being appointed Arbitrator.

§ MR. RAIKES
remarked that the appointment of a Select Committee would afford an ample opportunity of weighing 1351 all objections, and pointed out that it would be especially important to consider whether it was desirable to leave the Arbitrator to decide at his own discretion whether or not there should be an appeal.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
said, he thought there had been nothing more lamentable in the administration of justice in this country than the European Assurance Society Arbitration. At the end of five years, and after an expenditure of about £50,000, they had come to the conclusion that nothing whatever had been actually settled. It was to be hoped that this scandal would not be aggravated in the future.

§ MR. MELDON
maintained that the policy-holders ought, in justice, to have a right to appeal not dependent on the discretion of the Arbitrator.