§ MR. MACLURE (Stratford)I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of the measure is mainly to remove a disqualification under which solicitors are at present with regard to being able to sit on a County Bench of Magistrates. The Bill is acceptable to the solicitors in the High Court of Justice.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr Maclure.)
§ DR. TANNERI think this is a subject which ought to attract the attention of one of the responsible Law Officers, or at any rate of some hon. or right hon. Gentleman experienced in legal matters, who might favour us with his opinion on the point. For my own part, I am inclined to think that solicitors, who of course have some knowledge of law, would make very good magistrates. I should like to hear why it is that solicitors have been hitherto excluded from the Bench of Magistrates. It appears to me a singular thing that this exclusion has been maintained, and that there must have been some reason for it, and as one of the uninitiated I should like some explanation of the fact. The House ought, I think, to have the assurance of some responsible Law Officer that this measure would have a beneficial effect. The only reason that occurs to me for the exclusion of solicitors from the Magisterial Bench is that they might curry favour with the other magistrates, and so undermine the administration of justice in furtherance of their own pro- 59 fessional ends. I do not know whether they are allowed to act in boroughs.
§ DR. TANNERWell, if they can act in boroughs I do not see why they should not also act in counties.
§ MR. MACLURESolicitors who are made magistrates are to be specially excluded under this Bill from acting in any Court within the county in which their magisterial functions are exercised.
§ DR. TANNERAm to I understand that this Bill will only allow solicitors to act as magistrates in districts in which they do not practice?
§ MR. MACLUREThey are not to practice in any Court of first instance in counties wherein they may act as magistrates.
§ DR. TANNERAnd does the Bill also exclude their partners?
§ MR. MACLUREYes.
§ DR. TANNERI am glad to hear this, and to have had the explanations that have been given on all these points, which are certainly germane to the question. But I would impress on the House that it is really very wrong to bring' forward in so crude and imperfect a way measures of this kind, especially at a time when we are unable properly to discuss them.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill road a second time, and committed for Thursday, 13th March.