§ (Of Partners, and their liability and authority in respect of Partnership Dealings.)
§ Clause 6 (Partnership defined).
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WARTONsaid he would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Motion was a strange one, but he made it on principle, because he thought this Bill was one which ought not to be brought forward. It was not here a question of the period of the Session being too late for the consideration of the Bill. If it wore the first day of the 1325 Session he should oppose the measure just the same. The Bill came from a number of gentlemen calling themselves a Chamber of Commerce; but some of the greatest commercial authorities of the country were opposed to it. The only thing that could be said in favour of the Bill was that it was a Code; but he maintained that it was not a complete Code. It was a sort of commercial man's vade mecum—a sort of pamphlet to support the vanity of those who, having been on the Select Committee which had been appointed to consider the subject, felt bound, as a point of honour, to support that Committee, though their Report had been shown to be absurd. This was not a Party question, and he would appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General to support that view. The hon. and learned Member was a partizan, he knew; was a man who would do anything for his Party; who would always vote for his Party, as he (Mr. Warton) always voted for his. He would ask the hon. and learned Member to support his Motion, and not to give his vote for a Bill of this kind which could do no good whatever. The Bill, if passed, would operate like one of those 1s. handbooks which, while it made people think they knew all the law, was the very best friend of the lawyers. The Bill was very careful to tell them what a"firm"was—a thing which everybody in business knew perfectly well. He knew the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was very fond of the Bill; but that was because the right hon. Gentleman fancied himself a lawyer, which he was not.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 109: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 291.)
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the House had been continuously at work now for a long time; the Sitting had commenced early, and it had been arranged that Business should commence again at midday. He would appeal to the Government whether it was not putting too severe a strain upon all the officers of the House to compel them to keep on duty so late, night after night, and recommence again each day at an early 1326 hour? He begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Aylmer.)
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, it might be fairly asked, if the Bill was to come before the House so constantly, and to be supported so persistently by hon. Members opposite, that there should be some official expression of opinion upon the Bill from the Law Officers of the Crown. He had heard indirectly what their opinion was said to be; but he should like to have that opinion expressed in the House. Whenever the Bill was called on, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General became conspicuous by their absence; but, seeing that this was a Bill affecting the law of the country, surely the House had the right to expect a distinct opinion from these legal authorities.
§ MR. MONKsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had made the Motion had done the like on several previous occasions; certainly he did so when the Bill was before the Committee on the last occasion. The Committee must be aware how few were the opportunities a private Member had of bringing forward Business, and at that period of the Session he could seldom do so before 1 o'clock in the morning. This Bill was very much desired by the commercial community in the country; it was a Bill which had been drafted by a very distinguished member of the Bar; it was a Bill which had been revised by, and had received the approval of, the first authority on Partnership Law in the country—Lord Justice Lindley—and, therefore, it was a somewhat strong measure to prevent the Bill being considered in Committee. The Bill had been considered by a Select Committee, and it had been before the House in three Sessions at least, and it had had on the back of it the name of the Solicitor General; and that last fact was a sufficient answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring), as determining whether the Bill had, or had not, the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown. He must say it was rather hard upon a private Member who brought forward a measure of this sort, certainly from no desire of his own to intrude on the House, 1327 but who, from circumstances he could not control, was obliged to bring it forward—it was very hard upon him to refuse consideration of the Bill in Committee. He had carefully gone through the Bill with the President of the Board of Trade, and it had been carefully considered by his right hon. Friend with the draftsman, and every clause in it had the sanction of Lord Justice Lindley. The Bill had been considered by the Lord Justice, and there were certain Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), several of which he (Mr. Monk) was willing to accept, so that he believed in the course of an hour the Committee might very well finish the Bill.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, looking over the list of names, he did not find that of the Solicitor General on the back of the Bill.
§ MR. MONKexplained, of course, as this was not a Government Bill the Solicitor General's name was not upon it; but his name was upon it formerly when he was not a Member of the Government.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDcould only say that the Solicitor General—and, he might add, the Attorney General—invariably wont away the moment the Bill was announced; and why should those two legal authorities leave the Committee to the mercy of the President of the Board of Trade and constant allusions to Lord Justice Lindley? For the opinion of the Lord Justice he had the greatest respect; but against his judgment he could quote the eminent authority of the Master of the Polls, and having the Bill in Court, as it were, he (Sir Henry Holland) had a right to cite this last witness as altogether opposed to the measure.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not pretend to offer an opinion as between the two authorities quoted; but he would point out that, by the course of opposition adopted, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was rather harshly treated in the circumstances under which the Bill came before the House. It had been introduced in previous Sessions, and the hon. Member had been unable to obtain the consideration, of the House for it. This Session he was more fortunate, and after a consideration and considerable amendment 1328 by a Select Committee, it came before the House for consideration in Committee. It had been down for such consideration again and again; but on every occasion it had been met, at the outset of the discussion, by Motions to report Progress, and that the Chairman do leave the Chair, from the other side of the House. And now it was said these Motions were justified by the fact that the Bill did not receive the support of the Law Officers of the Crown. To that he had to say the Bill received the support of the Government, of whom, the Law Officers formed a part; and he would further point out that although it was a matter, no doubt, that concerned the interest of lawyers, yet it concerned, in a greater degree, the interest of the commercial classes; and he was not quite certain that the two interests were always identical. But he was quite certain that if the commercial classes had to wait for a consolidation and amendment of the Law of Partnership until they had the support of lawyers generally, they would wait for an indefinite time. He was quite certain that his hon. Friend was within the mark when he said the majority of the commercial classes who had considered the subject were in favour of the Bill—he would not say of every detail of the Bill, but of the Bill generally. The Committee were aware that very great complaints were made, from time to time, as to the neglect of the commercial interests by the House. That neglect arose partly from general causes that interfered with all legislation; but it arose chiefly from the fact that the commercial interest had no great political force at the back of it. But the best confirmation those complaints could receive would be found in the treatment of this Bill. At the same time, if it was, as it appeared to be, the fixed intention to impede the Bill, and to refuse to it even consideration, at an hour when it was not unreasonably late, considering the period of the Session, then he must say, all he could do was to advise his hon. Friend to accept, under protest, the decision of what was, after" all, a considerable minority, and which, under the existing Rules of the House, they had the power to give effect to, and he would be able to report to his clients that he lost no opportunity to obtain consideration for the measure.
MR. T. C. BASINGsaid, it should be explained that, though the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying the Bill had been before the House on several occasions, he could not go further, and say that it had been debated on any occasion.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINYou will not allow it to be.
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, there never had been a debate of any sort or kind on the second reading; and during the years the Bill had been before the House, it would have been easily in the power of the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was so eminent a Member, to bring a subject so important to the commercial class—a class of which the right hon. Gentleman formerly was, and he (Mr. T. C. Baring) still was, a member—before the House on some night when it could be debated. It was stultifying the House to say the Bill had been before it so long, when it was not the less true that it had never been discussed in principle or detail.
§ MR. HORACE DAVEYprotested strongly against what the President of the Board of Trade had said as to the Bill being opposed in the interest of lawyers. What did the right hon. Gentleman suppose was the interests of lawyers in opposing the Bill? And, to individualize, what interest was it to him (Mr. Horace Davey) to oppose the Bill, unless it was his interest to oppose a radically bad Bill, which he had no hesitation ill saying this Bill was? He thought that when a Bill of this kind was brought on for the purpose not of introducing changes in the law, but for codifying and consolidating the law, though he conceived and quite agreed that the commercial classes ought to be consulted, and ought to express their opinion as to retaining portions of the law, or changing portions of the law, or the mode in which the Code was to be expressed, he did not deny that the commercial classes had the greatest interest in a subject of that kind; but he did say that when the House was supposed to be not making a new law, but, as they were told, consolidating and codifying the present law, then the people to whom they would go to know what the present law was, and whether the Bill adequately represented it, were the people who knew something about law. What did the right hon. Gentleman 1330 suppose was the interest of lawyers in opposing such a Bill? On the contrary, it would be for their interest to be able to burn their text-books and have nothing but the Code. Speaking for himself, he would be glad to burn the whole of his library on the subject, and have nothing but a Code which he could keep in his pocket. Was it the interest of lawyers to have to consult a number of text-books? Would they not very much rather have the law in a handy consolidated form than in the form of some 500 volumes? The people who had most interest in codifying the law were lawyers who had to deal with it; but they had also an interest in taking care that this was properly done; and he would say that the public ought to be indebted to those of the Legal Profession who had sat up night after night in the House for the purpose of seeing that the Bill should be in such a form that it did express the law, and in taking the trouble to point out the defects in the Bill, where it would change the law, and what would be the effect. It was certainly remarkable that on every occasion when the Bill came before the House, it was not the Attorney General or the Solicitor General who expressed opinions from the Government Bench, but the President of the Board of Trade. A very unfair use had also been made of the name of Lord Justice Lindley in this matter. He had had for a long time the pleasure of enjoying the friendship of Lord Justice Lindley, and no man had a greater admiration for the ability and experience of the Lord Justice. He had no doubt—in fact, he knew—that the Bill, in its original form, when it was proposed to be introduced, was submitted to Lord Justice Lindley, and he was good enough to make several alterations in the drafting of the Bill, many of which were the greatest improvements; but he was certain of this, and he was stating what he knew, that Lord Justice Lindley did not make himself responsible for every clause in the Bill. Another learned Judge had been mentioned, a name which was at least entitled to as much respect—the Master of the Rolls, and with that learned Judge he had been through the Bill, clause by clause, and the opinion expressed was that it was a thoroughly bad Bill, one of the worst of the proposed Codes; and he might be allowed 1331 to say that the greater number of the Amendments he had placed on the Paper had the approval of the Master of the Rolls. It was under such circumstances that his right hon. Friend rose and made scoffing remarks as to the interest of lawyers in opposing the Bill.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the President of the Board of Trade had made a great point of the support the Bill had received among the commercial community; but it could not be disputed that he (Mr. Fowler) represented a great commercial constituency, and he could say that from no one of them had he had a word in approval of the Bill. On the other hand, it was opposed by eminent lawyers, and also by the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring), one of his constituents, and a man eminent among the commercial community.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, as he was one of those who had deprived themselves of natural rest in assisting his hon. Friend to make head against the machinations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, his hon. Friend might listen to an appeal from him. Nothing was more glorious than the sight of a good man struggling against adverse circumstances, and that was his hon. Friend's position now. He had done all he could for his clients; he had brought on his Bill again and again; the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) had given testimony to his zeal; but as it was palpable he had only one more night and could not have another, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined there should be no progress made, was it any good to divide the Committee again and again before doing what would have to be done in the end—to yield to persistent opposition?
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress.