§ His Majesty in Council may make rules of Court for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Act, the procedure and practice of the Supreme Prize Court and of the Prize Courts within the meaning of this Act, and the duties and conduct of the officers thereof, and of the practitioners therein, and for regulating the fees to be taken by the officers of the Courts, and the costs, charges, and expenses to be allowed to the practitioners therein.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI beg to move, to leave out the words "and of the practitioners therein" ["the officers thereof, and of the practitioners therein"].
I do not understand the words "and of the practitioners therein." It may be a 1185 very small point and the words may be innocuous, but I know of no precedent for the introduction of such words, which might be used to the detriment of the freedom of the bar and of solicitors. It may be a very small or a very large matter according to how it is used. Unless we have some explanation from the Government as to what is meant by these words I shall be disposed to press the Amendment.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)My hon. and learned Friend says that he is unable to find a precedent for the words he moves to omit, but if he will look at the printed copy of the Bill, at the very Clause on which he moves this Amendment, he will see the marginal note refers to 57 and 58 Victoria, chap. 39, s. 3. If he will look at that Statute he will see it is the Prize Courts Act of 1894. The words which are now criticised by his Amendment are words which are reproduced from the Prize Courts Act of 1894, which in its turn, I believe, reproduces the Statute of 27 and 28 Victoria. I have the words of the existing law before me, and I will read them. The present law runs as follows:—
Her Majesty the Queen in Council may make rules of Court for regulating, subject to the provisions of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, and this Act, the procedure and practice of Prize Courts within the meaning of that Act, and the duties and conduct of the officers thereof, and of the practitioners therein, and for regulating the fees to be taken by the officers of the Courts, and the costs, charges, and expenses to be allowed to the practitioners therein.So far as I am able to check them, I do not ascertain any distinction between what we propose to put in this consolidating Act and what has stood unchallenged on the Statute Book since the last Act was passed.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESThe Solicitor-General cannot have looked at the matter with great care, because there are no words in the Act he has quoted as to the conduct of practitioners in Court.
§ Sir J. SIMONIf the hon. and learned Member looks at my copy of the Act he will see that the conduct of practitioners in Court are the words in the existing law.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe fact that these words are in the existing law is not conclusive on this question. We are accustomed to alter laws when we think them bad, and I have heard no defence from the Solicitor-General for the proposal in the Bill except that a similar enactment exists. Perhaps he will consider it on its merits. The Clause enacts that His Majesty in Council may make rules as to the duties and conduct of the practitioners in Prize Courts. Why should Orders in Council be made for that purpose? I quite agree that it is right that orders should be made as to the procedure and practice in Prize Courts, but I submit that the conduct of practitioners in the Court is a matter for the judge to deal with, just as it is left to all other tribunals. Unless there is some attempt made to justify the words proposed to be left out I shall certainly support the Amendment. I see no reason on the merits why the words should be left in.
§ Mr. JOSEPH MARTINI would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the interest of the Colonies in regulations of this kind. I suppose that ordinarily the practitioners before these Courts would be those entitled to practice in the respective countries who are parties to the arrangement. In connection with this country there are a number of Colonies who have persons in them entitled to practise law. They are not entitled to practise law in this country. I would ask that in making these regulations the scope should be widened, so that a lawyer in Canada, in Australia, or in any other of the self-governing Colonies should be entitled to the same right to appear before a Court of this kind as an advocate, as are the barristers of this country itself. I think it is a great shame now that a practitioner in Canada or any of the Colonies is not allowed to appear in any Courts of this country, and that there is no way he can get that right except by becoming an ordinary student of law here. In this matter the Government can help the practitioners in the Colonies by seeing that these regulations are wide enough to include everybody in the British Empire who is entitled to practise law.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESIn order to save the time of the House I would say that I agree that there is apparently a precedent in the Act of 1894. I think that the Solicitor-General will agree that the words may possibly be objectionable. I 1187 merely speak in the interests of the profession. If the Solicitor-General will indicate that the matter will be considered I shall not press the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMONI shall be glad to give that undertaking.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.