§ Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th December], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ (11.52.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)I hope this Bill will not be read a second time at this late hour, and I entertain that hope for many reasons. It has now been before the House for two Sessions, and in the whole of that time we have never been able to get an explicit explanation of its principles from the hon. Member in charge of it. I have again and again tried to find out why it was that the hon. Gentleman was so persistent in trying to push the Bill through at a late hour of the night, and as I have been unsuccessful I have had my distrust of the measure intensified. I venture to raise a protest against the Second Beading of this Bill being moved by a Member merely rising in his place, and not attempting to give any explanation of its principles. There are many points in it which require discussing. I submit it would be a very dangerous thing to admit solicitors to act as Justices of the Peace. You might, as I have on a previous occasion pointed out, have one member of a firm of solicitors sitting on the Bench listening to the pleadings of his partner in one of the cases being tried. Now that would be manifestly dangerous, and surely it is in itself a sufficient reason why the Bill should not be pressed forward at this late hour of the night. I appeal to the hon. Member—for there is still time for him to repent— 888 to withdraw the Bill, at any rate, for to night, and on some future occasion to state to the House of Commons the reasons he has for asking that it be adopted.
§ (11.57.) MR. MACLURE (Lancashire, S.E.)There is not time now to describe at length the proposals of the Bill, or to deal with the objections which have been raised by the hon. Member. But I may point out that those objections have been already met by one of the clauses in the Bill, which provides that no member of a firm of solicitors, which in any way practise before a Court, to adjudicate in such Court. I think the general feeling of the Bar, and of the profession, is in favour of this Bill being read a second time.
§ (11.59.) MR. CRAIG (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)I object to this Bill being read a second time without some explanation or some expression of opinion being given by the Law Officers of the Crown. I fear that if it is passed we shall have in our Courts of Justice a spectacle something similar to that we have witnessed in Ireland, where Engineer A has been allowed to sit in judgment upon Engineer B's plans, and Engineer B has been allowed to approve the plans of Engineer A in some other county. What on earth is the reason for pressing forward this Bill? I am astonished that the Law Officers of the Crown have refrained from giving us their opinion upon it.
§ It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed to-morrow.