HC Deb 18 July 1890 vol 347 cc227-8

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(4.18.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I am surprised that the Attorney General has not risen to explain the provisions of this Bill. It certainly seems to me improper that at so late a period of the Session it should be proposed to introduce a sort of codification of so important a branch of the law, which is to apply, not only to England and Ireland, but to Scotland as well. The Bill has not been submitted to the people of Scotland, and I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hunter.)

*(4.19.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I stated last night that this Bill has been most fully considered by a Select Committee in another place, and that it has been carefully examined both by Lord Herschell and Lord Justice Lindley. It is, with some Amendments, practically the Bill which was printed and circulated last Session, and the provisions in reference to Scotland have been considered by the Lord Advocate. I have no objection after the Bill has been read a second time to put off the Committee stage for a week so that a full opportunity may be afforded to hon. Members for submitting Amendments.

(4.21.) MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

I feel bound to support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, in the interests of the people of Scotland. I do not think that many Members of the House are at all acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. I, for one, have not had time to make myself acquainted with the details of the measure, and their full bearing upon the public commercial interests of Scotland. The best way of giving the Scotch people an opportunity of seeing how their interests are affected will be, I think, to defer the Second Reading, and not to put off discussion until the Committee stage of the Bill.

(4.22.) MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.)

I hope that the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate will not be carried. I did not look at the Bill until after the Debate which occurred last night; but I have done so now, and as a commercial man I am of opinion that it is a most valuable measure, and one that ought to be passed into law.

(4.23.) The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 167.—(Div. List, No. 191.)

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

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

To what extent will the Bill modify the Scotch partnership law? I understand that there is nothing controversial in it except that it modifies the Scotch procedure.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute

The Bill is a Consolidation Bill, and it does not, so far as Scotland is concerned, modify or alter the law except in one or two points of the merest detail. One of the most competent professors of Scotch Law has used the Bill as a hand-book for teaching Scotch Law, because it is so accurate and so concise. I have had strong representations that it will deprive Scotland of a great benefit if this clear and lucid statement of partnership law is denied.

MR. WALLACE

Who is the professor?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The professor to whom I referred was Professor Rankine, of the University of Edinburgh.

MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I should like to ask whether the Bill as regards England is merely a Consolidating Bill, or whether it does not make one or two alterations of the law?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

There are one or two minor alterations which I shall be glad to point out to any hon. Member who desires it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 28th July.